Can a Person be a "Baptist" and not Immerse?

Saying the amount of water is not important in baptism, is like saying it doesn't matter how much dirt we put over the dead person! We are buried with Him in baptism not sprinkled with him.

 

Well, you have a point. The one thing the BB so often and so sadly demonstrates that the Baptist label can be hi-jacked by people from a broad spectrum of beliefs- denying some or all of the historical Baptist distinctives and fundamentals.

From liberals to KJVO's to hyper-calvinists to arminians to you name it... folks have pretty much redefined the term Baptist to contradict everything baptistic.

 

in acts i forgot which chapter is a picture or example of a full water immersion, i had to think for a while but now i believe it is important to follow with full immersion especially how sherlock57 showed a very good example.
you mentioned about how your blood boiled, now you know how i feel when i see a liberal post that contradicts scripture.

 

Happily it is not being 'baptist' that saves us.

Until a little bit less than a year ago I was never baptized by immersion, but only sprinkled as a child in a dutch reformated church.

A year ago I decided that in obedience to the Bible I wanted to be baptized by immersion, but definitely not because of importance for my salvation. My parents, both sprinkled as children and never immersed are as saved as I am (as far we can be sure about that concerning other people)

In holland (my homecountry) there is a church who claim or used to claim that they are the only true church. Sometimes it seems that some baptists have the same opinion about their denomination....

gr. Mauricio

 

You haven't heard th worst Dr. Bob. I had to serve, while in seminary, with a pastor who held that baptism was irrelevant to Jesus since Jesus Himself never batised anyone.

Boy did we have a few discussions about that!

He also said that the amount of water was unimportant.

I will ive him this though; he made an interesting case that to obssess over the amount fo water was to walk in the direction of sacramentalism. He knew I didnt want to go there. But I was able to argue that baptists stress mode for other reasons that don't have anything to do with that theology.

 

I guess what's really stunning to me, Dr. Bob, is that one can hold such a shallow Baptist conviction and be a MODERATOR on this Board!

Should we change the name to Baptistic Board?

 

This is a first for me... I agree with you Dr. Bob. Rick Sr.

 

The obvious answer to the question at hand is No!

Immersion, and the right candidate, is mandatory to being a Baptist. I have heard some say about sprinklng a bedridden person because of circumstances. Why? The whole purpose of baptism is (1) a step of obedience; (2) a witness to being dead to sin, buried and resurrected in newness of life. It is not important for a bedridden person to be baptized.....sprinkled, poured upon, immersed or any other way.

I have baptized a victim of polio who was confined to a wheelchair.....I held the person in my arms and dunked them....we both went under and we both came up.......dare anyone tell me that is not baptism because I didn't dunk him backwards or follow the normal procedure established by this church or that? He was every bit baptized as it had been commanded by the Lord and as a witness to his faith in Christ.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I think it just demonstrates the lack of basic biblical knowledge that is in our churches. Instead of teaching the Scripture, points are taken for granted. Then, the preacher breaks out with a "all that matters is the heart" sermon. I had a prof try to convince everyone with that stuff. Um, no. If all that mattered was the heart, the Bible would be a couple of verses.

I am beside myself that this discussion ever came up. It is just so sad.

 

It is quite evident that this type of discussion needed to be brought up!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Personally, I like the approach of the Didache, which is to baptize by immersion, but to allow pouring if immersion is not possible due to circumstances. I think this approach is in keeping with Scripture, because the strongest case can be made for immersion from Scripture, but a case can also be made for pouring (albeit a substantially weaker case than for immersion).

Pastork

[ January 17, 2003, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Pastork ]

 

DHK,

You have echoed much of what I spoke to the pastor with whom I served. Didn't convince him.

PastorK,

I'm with you!

But let me say this:

As far as I am concerned, the circumstances under which we might find anoter mode used for practical reasons do not, at least in North America, exist.

Water shortage is not an issue as per the Didache. There is simply no excuse to not immerse on those grounds. I have seen Anglicn churches situated right on a bay, and they sprinkle instead of immerse. I think that's a perfect waste of a natural baptistry.

The closest I come to seeing reasonable grounds for using another mode is in the case of those who simply cannot be removed from their beds. Connnected to machines and the like.

Jim,

As a matter of baptist polity I of course agree. Immerson is the Baptist standard, simply becuase it is normal mode in Scripture. And we do strive to be like the NT church where aporpriate.

 

Since what denomination we belong to has anything to do with wether or not we are saved, then to be a Baptist you must be one who holds to Baptist beliefs. If you do not, then you are not a Baptist no matter what you call yourself.
Hope I said that right the way I was thinking it.

 

Being a Baptist, I'm bound by my membership to accept only immersion (physical restrictions notwithstanding) as an acceptible form of baptism.

Now this doesn't mean that a non-immersed Christian isn't a Christian, it simply means he hasn't been baptized in accordance with Baptist tradition.

I don't believe that immersion is the only acceptible form of baptism for a Christian, just a Baptist.

 

The name Baptist was not tagged on us because we go around dunking people under water. As you all know it came from "Ana-baptist" which means "re-baptizer" and was given due to the fact that we didnt believe in paedobaptism and rebaptized souls after they came to Christ even though they may have been baptized as infants and nothing whatsoever with the mode of baptism. In fact the anabaptists of Switzerland and the Netherlands used the pouring mode.

[ January 17, 2003, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Ps104_33 ]

 

Well, I don't care what anybody says...

If you don't get a whole body dunk & a little water up your nose, you ain't a Baptist. Period. Case closed.