Alien Immersion

That would depend on the church that did the original baptism. We baptize those who come to us from churches that are not of like faith and order. The name Baptist is not the issue, but the doctrine, faith, and order definitely is.

 

Anti-Alien Immersion is a tenant of Landmarkism, which began as a movement within the SBC. In 1846 J. R. Graves (from Vermont...?) became the editor of the Tennessee Baptist, the largest circulated religious paper prior to the Civil War. In that paper he espoused the tenants of Landmarkism: (1) That the Church is a local church only; (2) That there is a succession of true Baptist churches back to the Jerusalem Church; (3) That Baptist churches alone have the authority to baptize and observe communion... therefore, they were anti-alien-immersion, i.e., immersion at the hands of other denominations. Communion is closed to members of the particular local church; (4) Anti-pulpit affliation; and (5) I believe, anti-convention, because conventions usurp the authority of the local church. Many of the Landmark churches broke from the SBC in 1905.

Most Landmark churches refuse to receive the baptism from non-Baptist churches, and many of them refuse to receive the baptism from other Baptist churches that are not Landmark.

I receive believer's baptism by immersion from churches of "similar" faith. By the way, I left the Landmark Baptist in 1977. I have been a SBC pastor since then. Some SBC churches are Landmark.

 

When I hear that term "alien immersion" or "alien baptism", I get a mental picture of E.T. being lowered into the water.

 

Oops, wrong graphic; meant to hit the masked dude.

 

My pastor and I were just talking about this today. Baptism is really to show the world that you AGREE and have joined a particular group of people. Why was Jesus Baptised? Certainly not for forgiveness of sin, but to show that he agreed and was part of John the Baptist's group (as we know John the Baptist came to lead the way for Jesus so he was obviously Christian).
For this reason, most Baptist churches will want to Baptise a person who was baptized in another "unlike" faith (depending on the church and how far from our faith they are and what the Baptist church considers as a like faith) and baptise them to show that they have accepted OUR basic doctrines -- such as Baptism does not save, Jesus Christ is God in human form, original sin of Adam, all people are sinners, we are saved by grace -- the basics like this. There may be disagreements on certain unimportant issues like just exactly when is the rapture, at the beginning middle or end of the tribulation, etc. which the church does not consider as having to do with salvation. Now for the big question and this I MUST put on another thread. Is a Church-of-Christ person saved if in their mind they reserve faith that they have to be Baptised? Don't answer that here look for my new thread. But, I hope this answers your question on the reBaptism. Baptism is ONLY a symbol to show the world WHO you identify with.

 

If any of you would like to read a tract I have written on why Baptists should reject alien immersion you can go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/message/127

Let me quickly mentioned two things.

First, it can easily be historically demonstrated that Baptists in both America and England rejected alien immersion long before J.R. Graves' day. An interesting historical study of this subject is J.H. Grime's "History of Valid Baptism"

Two, alien immersion is not about the name on the church sign, but the doctrine on the inside. For a church to be a New Testament church it must have the doctrine of the New Testament.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn: When I hear that term "alien immersion" or "alien baptism", I get a mental picture of E.T. being lowered into the water.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's pretty funny Michael! My sentiments exactly.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
It is up to the local church to determine if baptism was "valid" in their opinion. If you were baptized and then such a church says you must be "rebaptized", you must evaluate whether you agree with that church and that decision.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This caught my eye. In the first sentence, you say the church makes the determination about whether the baptism is "valid." Then in the second, you say it's up to the person to decide whether they agree.

What if they disagree? Who is right, the church or the individual?