"I need to be baptized again....."

Yes they could John was a Jew not of the Baptist faith. He only Baptized those who believed in the Kingdom as at hand.

The water Baptism of the Church identified us with our Placing our Faith in Jesus the one who died for us.

 

Guess that we baptists would have to also "kick" out Jesus, he also was jewish, and not a baptist!

 

Jesus established the baptist church!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Seems to me that a man from God such as John the Baptist would be uniquely qualified, and authorized, to be the administrator of baptism. He dunked a bunch of folks before Jesus came around. If the administrator had nothing to do with it, why didn't Jesus just pick somebody nearby to do it? That way he would not have had to walk so far.

Regarding your second paragraph, I actually agree with you. The local church may designate whomever it desires to baptize on its behalf, ordained or not.

 

Thanks for the list. You mentioned different modes. How about different design?

 

It is quite unorthodox. Baptism is the door to the local church. It is, as you say, announcing to the world your salvation, but it shouldn't stop there.

 

I quite agree, Jim. Baptism is being obedient to Jesus statement to "confess me before men."

One exception. Some new believers who live in totalitarian counties have been secretly baptized. But that is the exception.

 

What would be example of "different design?"

 

Jesus established His church, which is made up of Believers in Jesus Christ, are you saying guys like Swindol and Tony Evans aren't part of the Chuch since they aren't Baptist?

 

Fifty years ago, when some Independent Baptist churches were established in my town, there was some bad blood between them and the SBC churches because of perceived "sheep stealing."

That's long since passed. Today, my SBC church will receive IFB's by letter, and will grant letters to our members who join an IFB church. There's hardly a dimes worth of difference between us, now.

 

Sorry I didn't make that clear.

The design of baptism is to picture the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. For us, it is to show that we have died to sin, been buried in the likeness of His death, and raised to new life in Christ.

In other words, it is an outward demonstration of what has happened inside.

It is not salvific or sacramental, but strictly symbolic.

As an aside,I have read one Baptist scholar who believes one also receives the baptism of the Holy Spirit when he is water baptized. He cites the descending of the Holy Spirit as a dove at Jesus' baptism.

I don't quite agree with that. And he's the only Baptist scholar I ever read who holds that view.

 

Yep. When he completed the selection of the Twelve, he had him a Baptist church. Before he returned to be with the Father, this band had two ordinances, two Commissions. It had a Head, who was the Chief Shepherd.
It also had a treasurer, but that didn't work out very well.

 

Don't ALL Churches that though hold to immersion by believers view it in symbolic terms?

And that scholar is "off the wall"
Not even pentacostals believe in that!
Should say ONLY Jesus Only buys into that!

 

It was a novel view the first time I read it.

But, a lot of folks think it a novel view which I hold that baptism is the door to the local church.

And they think it is a novel view that Baptist churches should accept baptism only from congregations of like faith and order.

Sometimes being right is pretty lonely.

 

Hmm, I've never seen a baptism in the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost and Local church...

 

Sorry,JesusFan, I didn't directly answer your question.

To us Baptists, we all consider baptism symbolic. But not everybody does. They hold to a different design for baptism. For many, it is a means of grace. For others, it is necessary for salvation.

That's why the correct design is just as important as the correct mode, the correct subject and the correct administrator.

 

I'm a bit dense here. What is your point?

 

I deal with this issue quite often--because I deal with teens, many of them who make a profession of faith at a young age go through a season of doubt, especially during the mid-teen years. Some factors:

• Manipulation from the pulpit (doesn't happen at our church): emotional manipulation, or a preacher simply trying to get folks to come down the aisle...some will work the doubt angle.
• Sin or drifting from God. Due to sin in their life, the teenager doesn't "feel" saved, and questions their salvation.
• Quite simply--they don't remember it well: It's not like someone who is saved at twenty. You don't necessarily remember every detail, and that can engender doubt.
• There's more of you to commit now: I'm a firm believer in the following: when you become a Christian, you must give all you know of yourself to God. None of that "He was my Savior, but not my Lord" stuff. Having said that--you know a lot more about yourself at 15 than you do at 6. That's where "growing in your faith" comes in. But some kids (especially those who are having to do it on their own--without spiritual guidance from parents) confuse this "growth" with "getting saved." Consequently, they feel the need to get re-baptized to "cover" this new commitment.
• There's the person who "needs to get saved again." Two factors usually are involved here--there's been a conviction of sin, an da misunderstanding of eternal security.
• Then, there's the last category--the person who was baptized, but was not a believer.

My goal is to walk with the person through the process and willow out all other reasons. The key question (that sometimes needs a bit of "unpacking" is, "Were you a believer when you were baptized?" If not, there's no need for another. But the answering of that question can take a bit of time and effort. However...it's a very worthwhile process.

I bet I go through this discussion 3-4 times per month. Most of the time, we don't baptize; but a few times per year, an individual comes to the conclusion that his or her first "baptism" was simply a dunking, and they weren't believers.

 

think though ONLY Churches that do immersion of believers who would NOT be acceptable by ours(Cults are, like Mormons) would be the "jesus Only" and Church of Christ, as both of them hold it as being essential/part of/completing salvation process!

Think those that practice infant baptism like Catholics/lutherers/reform see it effect being different than totally symbolic. so we would not recognising them as being valid!

I tend to see this also much as closed communion, so IF a Church decided to have both closed Communion and strict baptism based on identical faith/practices, that would be under conviction/preference, just be sure others allowed to have their open communion/baptism!

 

Thanks for your update.

I agree that each autonomous congregation should decide its baptism policy. There is always the potential problem that one of their members may seek membership in our church, having had their baptism accepted by the previous church. A baptism that we would not accept.

I suspect there are some Baptist congregations which will accept sprinkling as valid baptism. If they come from one of those churches to ours, we may unknowingly accept their letter, not being aware that their baptism is invalid in our congregation.

That's why I keep coming back to "like faith and order" as a qualification.