A Valid Baptism?

[tyndale1946]

Please excuse how I worded this post as I am of the primitive baptist brethren and don't know how you other baptist hold morning worship service.

A person comes to your morning worship service and during the service as your manner is the Pastor of your church calls for new members. The person goes up during the altar call and ask for membership. So a baptism is in order but upon checking this person is already a baptist of another order but wants to join yours. Not only were they previously baptised but the one that baptised them was a Woman Pastor!... Is the baptism valid?... I know what Joshua will say but what of you other baptist?... If so why?... And if not why not?... Brother Glen :confused:

[GrannyGumbo]

Way back in the good ol'days, the churches we were members of, would not accept other baptisms unless it came from one of like faith and practice.

I understand the biblical criteria for baptism calls for the proper candidate, the proper motive, the proper mode, and the proper authority & to qualify for scriptural baptism, one must be saved and willing.

To me, if a woman baptized you, it wouldn't be scriptural anyway, so no, we wouldn't consider this baptism valid.

[Clint Kritzer]

It's an interesting question, Brother Glen.

The observance of the Lord's Supper and Baptism is one way in which we Baptist have varied slightly from Scripture. My interpretation, particularly of Baptism, is that ANY Christian is qualified to perform this ordinance as mandated by the Scriptures.

However, those who have come before us recognized that a certain sanctity must be preserved in the implementation of these ordinances, thus tradition has taken hold that it requires an ordained minister. I don't think that this is a bad thing but a person who is immersed for the correct reasons has shown obedience to Christ, IMHO.

For the purposes of joining the church, I would turn to the autonomous church for their decision on the matter. If a majority of members feel that the baptism was inappropriate or invalid to qualify the person in question for membership, there is certainly no harm in re-baptizing them.

The salvific Baptism of the Spirit comes from on high. To me, who dips them in water is not as important.

[tyndale1946]

Brother Clint said: The salvific Baptism of the Spirit comes from on high.I agree with that 100% the baptism of the Holy Ghost and with fire... That can only be administered by the Son of God. graemlins/thumbs.gif

Granny Gumbos point is also well taken proper candidate, motive, mode, and authority. According to I Timothy Chapter 3 a Woman Pastor does not have the authority. How far back in history do we have to go to find a Woman Pastor administering the ordinance of baptism? Is this a new thing that has risen out of the ranks of the feminist movement?... Where is the church record of the first time this was practiced?... These are some questions I have... Looking for answers not throwing stones. Churches are free to do what they want but is it scriptural?... Brother Glen :confused:

[ChristianCynic]

I am glad that very soon after I joined my current church, one of the first actions requiring a vote of the church was an amendment to bylaws regarding membership. The motion was that if a person wishes to join the church, baptism is not required provided that person was a believer in Jesus Christ and was baptised after professing that belief. This changed the rule at that time that such a baptism must in a [i]Baptist church. New baptism for a new believer, of course, was not altered by this action.

The fact that the previous baptism of person in question was done by a woman IMO should not be relevant. If it is, according to the 'new' church, then shall they do an investigation of every new member to see if the one who did the baptising met the new church's requirements?... such as minimum age, marital status and/or history, education, length of time as a Christian or as a minister... I don't think that is what matters. What matters is the sincerity of beliefs and statement of such of the one who was baptised, not the one who dipped him or her.

[ September 15, 2002, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

[Mrs, KJV]

If it is not like faith and practice it is not scriptual. The church that did the baptizing is not scriptual or they would hold to the Husband of one wife , not one husband. Woman pastors is heresy. Any heresy in the New Testament order, shouldn't be acceptable. My opinion and I am a pastor's wife, Have them get baptized, sounds like they just got wet the first time. :eek:

[Baptist Believer]

The man who performed my baptism was an adulterer (caught twice!!) although no one knew it at the time... My point?

The person who performs the ritual has no bearing on the act of obedience itself. The baptismal candidate is the one performing the act of obedience, not the facilitator.

If we are truly Baptists, we do not believe in a priestly system where the facilitator of the baptism or the water have any special power or revevance to the act of obedience.

My baptism was valid because I did it in an act of obedience to my Lord and Savior as the first good work of my new life in Christ. The fact that my pastor was an adulterer makes no difference. If it did, there's a lot of people who are not baptized properly because the person who facilitated their baptism did not measure up to commonly-accepted standards of Christian living.

Even if you don't accept women as pastors, it makes no difference.

[Mrs, KJV]

The difference is this was the Pastor's sin not the churches. But to let them hire a woman knowing this is not God's way is heresy and is not excepted. This makes the church unscriptual if it is not following scriptual practices. If the church who baptized you knew your pastor was an adulter and still left him practice this ordiance God help them. If they didn't know at the time the church is not held accountable. It does go back to the local church. tongue.gif

[BrianT]

Is not any Christian allowed to perform a baptism? Where in scripture are we told that it matters who the baptiser is???

[Brother Adam]

Come on folks. God's promises do not bear on our understanding. He can take care of himself and his own.

Bro. Adam

[DocCas]

Only a New Testament church can baptize. Not a person, but a church. If the church in question meets the biblical criteria for being a New Testament church, then the baptism is valid regardless of who helped the person into the tank, under the water, and out of the tank. smile.gif

[Frogman]

This is an interesting question. John Gill believed the authority to baptize lay with the pastor of the church. The truth is the authority belongs only to the church, because it was to the church the commission was given, not to individuals, they should baptize under the authority of a scriptural church, and they should be ordained members, pastors, or deacons.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Frogman:
This is an interesting question. John Gill believed the authority to baptize lay with the pastor of the church. The truth is the authority belongs only to the church, because it was to the church the commission was given, not to individuals, they should baptize under the authority of a scriptural church, and they should be ordained members, pastors, or deacons.

Bro. Dallas EatonHello Bro. Dallas,

Let me say that I agree with you (and the others) regarding the authority of the church to baptize. But this thread started me to thinking about the Book of Acts. Specifically when Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. Here is an example of an individual member, one of the first deacons, of the original Jerusalem Church baptizing a new believer all alone in a stream by the road side. Did his authority to baptize come from the fact that he was a deacon in the Jerusalem Chruch, or because of Christ's command to his followers in Matt. 28:18-20, or simply because God told him to go and meet this Ethiopian on the road?

I have to say that I would discount the fact that he was a deacon as being what gave him the authority to baptize. Acts 6 makes it clear that these men, the deacons, were chosen for the specific purpose of serving the widows of the church; thus, freeing the Apostles to study, preach, and teach the Word of God. Therefore, I maintian that our modern practice of allowing our "Deacon Boards" to have authority within the church is not scriptural. Deacons were/are to simply be servants of and for the church body. That is why they do not have a requirement in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 to be "able to teach" as is required of Elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

Can or should Deacons assist with the preparations for baptism, clean and fill the pool, help people into and out of the water, have towels etc. handy? By all means that is serving the church. Does being a deacon give one the authority to baptize? I don't think so. However, Matthew 28:18-20 is a command from the Lord to all of his disciples. This is where we all get the authority to baptize.

Now, how does a believer gain membership in a local church? 1) By outright baptism. 2) By transferring a letter that states he/she was baptised by a church of like faith and practice. 3) By making a formal statement that he/she confesses Christ as Lord and has been baptised according to that particular local church's faith and practice.

[FearNot]

I too found this to be a very interesting and thought provoking question. Like BibleboyII I automatically thought about the Ethiopian.

This is what I considered. First of all Baptism doesn't save a person from sin. Without Christ, a baptized sinner is just a wet sinner. There has to be a change of heart through salvation to rid one from sin. After we have accepted Christ we are to be baptized out of obediance to God. A Baptist church will not accept a baptism by sprinkling because it is an invalid form of baptism. To atain membership in a Baptist church they must be baptized again. If the church the person comes from baptized in a way that would be seen as unbiblical, or the church itself is unbiblical the correct baptism must be performed correctly to gain membership. A church with a woman pastor is unbiblical.

Here are a few other thoughts I have had.

If a person won't submit to the authority of the church in their decision to be baptized correctly, do you want them as members, and does that person really want to be a member there. A true believer should desire to live biblically correct, if they choose not to, how good of a member will they be. Most churches have enough not practicing members, why add to it. The act of baptism is a means of testifying your belief to others, as a witness, so why not be a witness. The pastor can state at the baptism that this believer had been saved but was submitting to proper baptism, this could be a mighty testimony to others that Scripture is to be lived out.

[ September 15, 2002, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: FearNot ]

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Baptist Believer:
The person who performs the ritual has no bearing on the act of obedience itself. The baptismal candidate is the one performing the act of obedience, not the facilitator.Absolutely.

The object of the candidate's faith is the validating element in baptism.

[Grasshopper]

If it is not like faith and practice it is not scriptual.

Can you prove this using your KJVO?

[mesly]

Originally posted by DocCas:
Only a New Testament church can baptize. Not a person, but a church. If the church in question meets the biblical criteria for being a New Testament church, then the baptism is valid regardless of who helped the person into the tank, under the water, and out of the tank. smile.gif DocCas, where in the scriptures does it say that we need to be baptized by a church?

[Mark Osgatharp]

Tyndale,

The earliest "rebaptisms" (apparently including the one in Acts 19) were administered because of an invalid administrator.

The earliest record (apart from the Bible) of rebaptisms were the Montanists who began to rebaptize the Romanists because they considered their churches to be schismatic and therefore their baptisms invalid. The Lutheran historian Moshiem claims there were 13 varieties of Anabaptists in Germany at the time of the reformation who regarded each others baptisms as invalid.

After the division between the Hardshells and the Missionary Baptists in the early 1800s, it became common for both Hardshells and Missionaries to regard the other's baptisms as invalid, and both, as a general rule, considered Campbellite baptism to be invalid.

From a biblical perspective, the authority to baptizes rests in the church because it was to the church that the great commission was given. In most Baptist churches today, the duty of dispensing baptism is assigned to the pastor.

If a church ordains a woman as pastor then I would question the validity of the church itself and therefore it's baptisms. By the same token, I (being a Missionary Baptist) would not acknowledge a Hardshell church as being valid and therefore would not recognize baptism administered by a Hardshell minister.

Mark Osgatharp

[Mark Osgatharp]

[/qb][/QUOTE]DocCas, where in the scriptures does it say that we need to be baptized by a church?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Mesly,

Where in the Scriptures does it say that all believers are authorized to baptize?

If the person who baptized you later decided he was not really a believer, would you consider your baptism invalid?

If not, then do you not really believe that all men, not just all believers, are given the authority to baptism?

Mark Osgatharp

[DocCas]

Originally posted by mesly:
DocCas, where in the scriptures does it say that we need to be baptized by a church?Matthew 28:18-20.

[tyndale1946]

Mark said: I (being a Missionary Baptist) would not acknowledge a Hardshell church as being valid and therefore would not recognize baptism administered by a Hardshell minister.I agree with you and neither would we accept your baptism or anyone out of our faith and practice as valid but that is another can of worms. Churches are free to do what they want and do and only answer to God... Not me!

Can we really say that the baptism is valid if it goes against the word of God? If I Timothy Chapter 3 was not in the Bible then you might have an argument but because it is then the guideline are set who a Pastor can be. There are only references to the male as a bishop or preacher if you prefer. No where does it even refer to the female. The word of God is plain the way I read it and John The Baptist that baptised Jesus was a man.

I see now that gender Bibles are raising their heads... Look Out. A perfect way to bring our children and great grand children and on into a new order that is not biblical. We do not want to offend any one and who really cares if it is scriptural as long as it brings in the masses. I dare say probably within 200 years when Jesus goes to be baptised in these new better versions our beloved John The Baptist will not be girded in camels hair but a dress... Brother Glen :eek:

[Frogman]

The Baptism of the Ethiopian eunich is a very good example. Phillip, as a member of the church of Jerusalem did baptize this child of God, the eunich did not apply for membership at Jerusalem, nevertheless, the church at Jerusalem would have accepted his experience of Grace, and would have recieved his baptism as valid, as would all others Antioch, Thesslonica, Corinth, etc. The fact remains true the church was told by our Lord to await in Jerusalem for the enduement of power from on high, the promise of the Holy Spirit, from the Father, this body did wait, Acts 1, this promise was fulfilled, Acts 2; this body then began to embark upon the commission, each, as in Phillip's case, or Peter's case, or in the case of Ananias, all previously reveived that water baptism by that body, which was organized, and sent into the world.

We have this discussion today only because there are so many who have changed, and it is now necessary to distinguish between "scriptural and unscriptural" in these early days of the church this distinction was not so needed.

Now it would be good that we not need this distinction today, but as long as some insist on following unbiblical practices ( women pastors, deacons, salvation wholly by works, or at least insured by works and thus kept by the same etc.) it becomes necessary for us to make such distinctions between valid and invalid baptism.

Certainly Paul did not accept the baptism of John, not because of the failure of those baptized to believe in our Lord, but because of the failure to know of the Holy Spirit, through doctrinal teaching. This is why John said, in John 3.29: "Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but I must decrease."

John's baptism was water baptism, it was accepted of Christ, but did not impart the Holy Spirit, this is why John said: "I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.

If we receive the same baptism as the body (the church) on the day of Pentecost, Then John's baptism is invalid. Then the apostle's administered an invalid baptism, having never been baptized, (with valid water baptism) thus, would ultimately lead to the dismissal of that ordinance of the church.

John certainly knew of the Holy Spirit, but his baptism was that unto repentance and looking forward to the Messiah that John preached, the baptism of the church occurred one time, prior to this the Holy Spirit moved upon men, II Pet. 1.21; After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit is in the church, enduing that body and that body only to pursue the fulfillment of the commission; the Spirit indwells believers, but operates through the local church. As the book of Acts sufficiently shows; particularly ch. 13: where Paul and Barnabas were chosen by the Holy Spirit, but the church was made aware of this, and gave their hands, in ordaining and sending the two forth. ch. 11.19-26 also.

Bro. Dallas
Glasgow, KY

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by DocCas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mesly:
DocCas, where in the scriptures does it say that we need to be baptized by a church?Matthew 28:18-20.</font>[/QUOTE]Umm... And what local body was that? First Baptist Jerusalem? ;)

Here's my point. The Great Commission is given to the whole church, all its constituent members. The Church. Not "a" church. The authorty to baptise is given by Christ to the disciples. All of them. Matt 28 does not say anything about duly consituted authority of a local congregation delegated to an individual. To say that this passage asserts that baptism is to be done under the autority of a given congregation smacks both of eisegesis and Romanism, IMO. it isn't like jesus was making a staement about local church governance in the Great Comission...

[Mark Osgatharp]

Latria said,

[/qb][/QUOTE]Here's my point. The Great Commission is given to the whole church, all its constituent members. The Church. Not "a" church. The authorty to baptise is given by Christ to the disciples. All of them. Matt 28 does not say anything about duly consituted authority of a local congregation delegated to an individual. To say that this passage asserts that baptism is to be done under the autority of a given congregation smacks both of eisegesis and Romanism, IMO. it isn't like jesus was making a staement about local church governance in the Great Comission...[/QB][/QUOTE]

Latria,

There is no "church" mentioned in the New Testament other than a local body of baptized believers. The one's who smack of "eisegesis and Romanism," are those who read Romanistic concepts of "the church" into the Bible.

Anyone can read the book of Acts and quickly discern that the work of the ministry was authorized and executed through local churches. Therefore, it is clearly withint the realm of truth to assert that it was "the church" to whom the great commission was given.

Mark Osgatharp

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Latria said,

Here's my point. The Great Commission is given to the whole church, all its constituent members. The Church. Not "a" church. The authorty to baptise is given by Christ to the disciples. All of them. Matt 28 does not say anything about duly consituted authority of a local congregation delegated to an individual. To say that this passage asserts that baptism is to be done under the autority of a given congregation smacks both of eisegesis and Romanism, IMO. it isn't like jesus was making a staement about local church governance in the Great Comission...[/QB][/QUOTE]

Latria,

There is no "church" mentioned in the New Testament other than a local body of baptized believers. The one's who smack of "eisegesis and Romanism," are those who read Romanistic concepts of "the church" into the Bible.

Anyone can read the book of Acts and quickly discern that the work of the ministry was authorized and executed through local churches. Therefore, it is clearly withint the realm of truth to assert that it was "the church" to whom the great commission was given.

Mark Osgatharp[/QB][/QUOTE]

Mark,

There was no "local congregation" when Jesus was speaking the words recorded in Matthew 28.

You're reading the later developments in Acts back into Matthew. That's eisegesis. When jesus speaks of church in Matthew it is "his community", without the ideas of local jursidictions.
Again, what you are doing is reading ideas of polity into Matthew, just like RCs do. You just read a differnet polity. Its wrong either way, IMO.

[Kiffin]

Bro Glen asked,

So a baptism is in order but upon checking this person is already a baptist of another order but wants to join yours. Not only were they previously baptised but the one that baptised them was a Woman Pastor!... Is the baptism valid?... I agree that the authority to baptize rests in the local church and not in the moral qualifications of the baptizer. If the Church preaches the Gospel and is Trinitarian I would see no reason to reject them unless you find out the Church was preaching another Gospel and or was Modalistic in their view of the Trinity. Good question.

[Kiffin]

Latria.

I would say that in Mt. 28 Jesus was speaking to a local church in that the disciples make up the first congregation. Most of the epistles are written to local churches and have to be understood in a local church concept rather than a individualistic.

[Bible-belted]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
Latria.

I would say that in Mt. 28 Jesus was speaking to a local church in that the disciples make up the first congregation. Most of the epistles are written to local churches and have to be understood in a local church concept rather than a individualistic.The disciples were not a "local congregatio" They were all that was. They were the whoe universal church at that point. There was no "local" as a disticnt organfrom the universal. If Jesus was speaking to the "local" it was only be default as he was addressing the church universal.

This is not an individualistic conept I advocate. It is catholicity.

[Mark Osgatharp]

Lateria,

There was a church already in existence when Jesus gave the great commission, the church at Jerusalem. In Matthew 16 and 18 Christ had already entrusted this church with the keys of the kingdom of God. In the great commision He gave it it's orders and authorized it to pass those orders on in new localities.

Acts gives us the historical record of the first years of the church at Jerusalem and the subsequent churches carrying out this commission. Never did the term "church" refer to any thing other than a local entity.

The only sense in which "catholicity" is a characteristic of the Lord's churches is that there is one sort of church for all ages and all societies. There are many churches of Christ but only one in kind.

Mark Osgatharp

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Latreia:
Here's my point. The Great Commission is given to the whole church, all its constituent members. The Church. Not "a" church.You have failed, as yet, to prove the existance of any such conglomerate organism as the "catholic" church.

[DocCas]

Originally posted by Latreia:
There was no "local congregation" when Jesus was speaking the words recorded in Matthew 28.

You're reading the later developments in Acts back into Matthew.John 20:19 "Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

The disciples assembled together on Sunday prior to the book of Acts. The church prior to Pentecost had all the functions of our church today.

The bible clearly tells us the pre-Pentecost church had all the necessary requirements for a true church.

It was organized.</font> I had a Head - Matthew 23:8</font> It had a Pastor - John 10:11-14</font> It had discipline - Matthew 18:15-20</font> It had business meetings - Acts 1:15-26</font> It had other officers, in this case a treasurer - John 29</font>It was a Missionary church</font> It was commissioned - Matthew 28:18-20</font> It did Missionary work - Matthew 10:1-11:1</font> It had the Keys of the Kingdom - Matthew 16:19</font> It baptized those who believed - John 4:1-2</font> It had a membership roll - Acts 1:13-15</font>It engaged in church activities</font> The Lord's Supper - Matthew 26:26-28</font> Singing - Compare Matthew 26:30 with Hebrews 2:12</font> It met for prayer - Luke 11:1-9; Acts 1:14</font>It was added unto.</font> How can you "add to" something which is non-existant? Acts 2:41</font>It was called a "Flock."</font> Compare Matthew 26:31 and Luke 12:32 with Acts 20:28-29 and 1 Peter 5:2-3.</font>All of these things are observed to have taken place before the day of Pentecost. So the question, would this pre-Pentecost group satisfy the definition of a New Testament church? Organized assembly of baptized believers doing the Lord's work? Yes! Yes! A thousand times, Yes!

[Kiffin]

Latrele said,

The disciples were not a "local congregatio" They were all that was. They were the whoe universal church at that point. There was no "local" as a disticnt organfrom the universal. If Jesus was speaking to the "local" it was only be default as he was addressing the church universal.

This is not an individualistic conept I advocate. It is catholicity. I don't deny the catholicy of the Church and I would disagree they were the whole universal church at that point since Jesus had other followers besides those he gave the commission to. Mt 28 is a watershed event and I would say the New Testament church was in it's embryotic stage. The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth the Apostle Paul states and this is a referance to the local Church which is the most common use of the Church which is in a local sense. To place the authority of the ordinances outside the care of the local church I would respectfully say is to invite chaos and anarchy. The Second London Confession as well as most Protestant confessions are very carefull to place the authority over the ordinaces in the visible local Church, so it is not a Romanist idea. smile.gif

[Bible-belted]

1) Can people please have the decency to spell my screen name properly?

2) "prove" that there is a universal church? graemlins/laugh.gif

3) You concoct an arbitrary list of things that you think make up a duly constituted local church, show how those are present, and then conclusde that there was a local church?

Can you say circular?

4) YOu can add to a Church as easily as you add to a church. And I note that what was added to was the number of those being saved... that would be the Church!

Kiffin said:

"The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth the Apostle Paul states and this is a referance to the local Church which is the most common use of the Church which is in a local sense."

Yes, the Church is the ground and pillar of the truth. No, I don't belive that Paul was speaking of a generic local church but of the Church Universal. This is what makes the best sense in context. had Paul been wanting to say that local churches are the ground and pillar of the truth, he could have said it like that and removed the ambiguity.

"To place the authority of the ordinances outside the care of the local church I would respectfully say is to invite chaos and anarchy."

But I have not done that. I have simply stated that in Matthew 28 there was no diostinction between local and universal church.

"The Second London Confession as well as most Protestant confessions are very carefull to place the authority over the ordinaces in the visible local Church, so it is not a Romanist idea."

The idea that Matthew 28 refers to an institution is indeed Romanist. You can't use the confessions to justify it.

[Terry_Herrington]

Interesting question. Are we baptized as a picture of what happened when we were baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ or are we baptized into the local church?

I would think that we are showing a picture of what happened when the Holy Spirit baptized us in the body of Christ (There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, ONE BAPTISM, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Eph. 4:4-6). Therefore, I would be more concerned about the feeling of the person who had been baptized. If they felt unsure about it, I would baptize them again. If they felt secure in their past baptism, I would accept it. I don't think that we need to always worry about the qualifications of everyone who has ministered to us in the past.

What if a pastor served in a church for many years and baptized hundreds of people. Later, this pastor realizes that he have not been saved. Should the church launch a mass search to see that all the people he ever baptized was re-baptized?

[Ransom]

Since Scripture is the standard of our faith and practice, would someone advocating rebaptism please demonstrate from Scripture that this was the practice of the early church?

The only exception I am aware of is those who were originally baptized by John the Baptist, and this exception does not apply since the essential difference is one of intent - John baptized for repentance, and Christian baptism symbolizes identification with the New Covenant. Strictly speaking, John's baptism was not even Christian.

[ September 16, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[DocCas]

John's Baptism, according to the bible, was a true Christian baptism (Acts 19:4). However, if you will actually read the account in question, these folks were not baptized by John the Baptist, they were baptized by Apollos unto John's Baptism. In other words, they were baptized in John's name rather than as the Great Commission requires. Additionally, they seem to have had an incomplete gospel preached to them by Apollos, who may have been baptized by John, but had apparently moved on prior to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, so did not have the complete gospel to preach (Acts 18:25). These persons were obviously not saved for they not only didn't have the Holy Spirit, they had never even heard of Him (Acts 19:3)!

They were rebaptized for two reasons.

1. Their prior baptism, even though by immersion, was invalid for they were yet unsaved.

2. Their prior baptism, even though by immersion, was invalid for they were baptized for the wrong reason, unto John's Baptism rather than according to the Great Commission.

These people where rebaptized for the same reasons I would rebaptize a Mormon, JW, or CoC person.

[Ransom]

These people where rebaptized for the same reasons I would rebaptize a Mormon, JW, or CoC person.

But I do note you don't say another Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, a Pentecostal, or a Plymouth Brethren.

[ September 16, 2002, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[DocCas]

But I do note you don't say another Baptist, a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, a Pentecostal, or a Plymouth Brethren.I would rebaptize a Presbyterian for they would have been sprinkled, and not immersed. The same for Congregationalists. Some Pentecostals are baptized to get or complete their salvation. I would rebaptize them. As for "Plymouth" Brethren, there really is no such thing. In Britain they were known simply as Brethren, or Christian Brethren. Their doctrine is extremely inclusive counting all born-again believes in their numbers regardless of denominational affiliation or mode of Baptism. Any layman can baptize either in, or out of, the presense of the local assembly. They often tend to be Finnyesque in their doctrine and preaching, and are themselves divided regarding discipline into "exclusive" and "open" congregations. Just as a matter of identity, I would encourage any new comers from the Brethren to be baptized as Baptists to avoid any confusion as to their identity and doctrine.

On the other hand, their continental cousins, the German Pietists, who are now represented by the Church of the Brethren (Conservative Dunkers), Brethren Church (Progressive Dunkers), Old german Baptist Brethren (Old Order Dunkers), Church of God (New Dunkers, disbanded in 1962), and the Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches stand pretty much in my heritage of faith and they are always welcome! smile.gif

[tyndale1946]

Doc Cas said: These people where rebaptized for the same reasons I would rebaptize a Mormon, JW, or CoC person.That is an interesting senario as those Elders of our church would do the same but we would even rebaptise a baptist not of our same faith and practice... We have been know down through church history as rebaptisers.

I know why you would not accept the baptism of these other brethren but why would you accept the baptism of a Woman Pastor if you do? I find that I Timothy 3 is self explainatory as far as who can be a Bishop and a Deacon. Are we in a new age where we can reinterpret what has been penned down by holy writ? Are we free to declare what has not been stated in the past and practice the same? I think not?... That is how I understand it being of the Primitive Baptist brethren!... Maybe by brethren see something I don't... I speak only for myself and what I believe is sound doctrine!... Brother Glen smile.gif

[DocCas]

Originally posted by tyndale1946:
I know why you would not accept the baptism of these other brethren but why would you accept the baptism of a Woman Pastor if you do?We believe that baptismal authority is vested, by the Great Commission, in the church and not in any individual. So, if it were a valid church the baptism would be, de facto, valid baptism. That raises the greater question, if a church has a woman pastor is it a valid church? smile.gif

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Aaron:
...The object of the candidate's faith is the validating element in baptism.Aaron, do you consider this to be absolute? Are there no circumstances in which such a baptism could be invalid?

[tyndale1946]

Doc Cas said: That raises the greater question, if a church has a woman pastor is it a valid church?... That seemed to escape me the validity of the church. If the church is not valid then the baptism doesn't even come into the equation. The baptism would hold as much validity as a sprinkling... NONE!... I say baptise as the candidate was not baptised in the first place!... Brother Glen graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Jim Ellis]

I never gave it much thought over baptism, but if a friend of mine were to accept Jesus and be saved, say at the municipal swimming pool, and I was the one who lead him to the Lord in the sinners prayer, I'd ask him if we could baptize him right there in the pool! Phillip did! As I read the the Great Commission in Matt 28: 19, Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. NKJV Yup it don't say anything about it being any one of the cloth having to baptize anyone! So I guess I can as I see fit! Very cool indeed! graemlins/type.gif graemlins/thumbs.gif graemlins/laugh.gif graemlins/wavey.gif graemlins/love2.gif

[Mrs, KJV]

Dear Jim,
You are thinking like Pat Boone now. Phillp had authority from his local church to perform this ordiance. About the idea Doccas of excepting brethren baptism, the old order, dunkers, grace brethern. They all have the mode wrong. You don't baptize people forward on their faces. Baptism shows the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. You don't bury people on their faces. You don't dig someone up three times to bury them. The mode is under one time in the name of the father,son, Holy Ghost. So our Baptist Church would not accept them. I growed up in the brethern church and I have family of t smile.gif his demomnation. They are conservative but they are off on the ordiances of the church by bible standards.