"Rebaptism"

Discussion in '2000-02 Archive' started by Michael Wrenn, Dec 16, 2001.

  1. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    If a church required rebaptism of a person who had been sprinkled, but the pastor didn't agree with that, should the pastor be required to submit to the will of the congregation, or should (s)he follow his conscience on the matter?
     
  2. Don

    Don
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    10,547
    Likes Received:
    212
    This pastor needs to haul his deacons/elders/whatevers into a meeting, and discuss things. Make it clear what he, as the pastor, believes/doesn't believe, and what he expects from them and from the congregation.

    Only by clearly defining the standards and expectations from the get-go can such situations be avoided in the first place. And if the questions are arising because the pastor has "evolved" or developed new beliefs, he still needs to call in the elders of the church and make it clear what's going on.

    The pastor owes his congregation that much, at least.
     
  3. swaimj

    swaimj
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/swaimj.gif>

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with Don. If the church has a policy on this in their constitution, it should be followed, or if they have a traditional practice in this area, it should be followed, not the pastor's opinion.
     
  4. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2001
    Messages:
    317
    Likes Received:
    0
    A person who has only been sprinkled has not been baptized in the first place. The church is not a democracy to be run by the will of its members, but is to conduct its temporal as well as its spiritual business in strict accordance to the Word of God.

    There is a requirement to be met before a person can be baptized properly. They must be saved first.

    The eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
    And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
     
  5. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Some I've asked about this think the pastor should rebaptize the person or resign. But why not allow the pastor his freedom of conscience in the matter, and simply let someone else in the congregation baptize the person?
     
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,642
    Likes Received:
    310
    Because, we're Baptists. The one point that got us into trouble with the Protestants and the Catholics, lo many moons ago, was our insistence on immersion of believers as the only Biblical form of baptism and our non-recognition of spinkling/anointment/pouring as valid. Why do you think they called us Ana/Cata-Baptists? You can be many things and I will see you in Heaven. But, you cann't be a Baptist and recognize sprinkling as valid subsitute for immersion. To do so, a person would spit on the graves and memories of our martyred Baptist forefathers.

    And yes if the man is pastoring a Baptist church and he has come to the position as stated above, he should resign forthwith. He has ceased to be a Baptist.
     
  7. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Squire,

    Actually, that is not correct: "Anabaptist" meant "rebaptizer," without regard to the form which that rebaptism took; the term was applied to those such as the Mennonites who baptizing by pouring. The first Baptists were persecuted not because they insisted solely on immersion as the only valid form of baptism but because they insisted on believers baptism only and on the rebaptism of those who had been baptized as infants. John Smyth rebaptized himself by pouring, and immersion was not exclusively practiced by the first General Baptists.
     
  8. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    5,143
    Likes Received:
    25
    <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Wrenn:
    If a church required rebaptism of a person who had been sprinkled, but the pastor didn't agree with that, should the pastor be required to submit to the will of the congregation, or should (s)he follow his conscience on the matter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    If the church does not feel strongly about the matter, they could, as an autonomous body, choose to simply have someone else do the baptising. This might suit the congregation as well as the pastor. BUT as for me, I would not be part of a Baptist church whose pastor did not believe a sprinkled person should be immersed.
     
  9. Kiffin

    Kiffin
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2001
    Messages:
    2,191
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the pastor regards sprinkling or pouring form of Believer's baptism, he should let the Church know that is his belief before taking the pastorate. If not he should submit to the Church or resign. Baptist practice since 1644 has been full immersion only. It is true that the Anabaptist and early General's did not regard whether it was Immersion, sprinkling or pouring. Scripture indicates that Immersion is the most proper form however.

    Now if the guy wanted to baptize infants then he needs to go join a paedobaptist church.
     
  10. John Wells

    John Wells
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2001
    Messages:
    2,568
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yup, gotta agree with The Squire, rlvaughn, et al. Any church (I hope this was purely hypothetical Michael) that gets themselves into your proposed predicament did a poor job during the pastor selection process. Any pastor not believing in full immersion baptism is a) not a Baptist, and b) a poor discerner of God’s Word.
     
  11. Doc Yankum

    Doc Yankum
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2001
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    0
    If our pastor defied the authority of the church to rebaptise a prospective member who had been sprinkled, he would be asked to resign and if he would not he would be voted out of the office. In my mind he would be considered a non baptist. Also the pastor is a servant of the church. He does not dictate policy to the body
     
  12. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,642
    Likes Received:
    310
    I believe Doc you mean: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
    If our pastor defied the authority of the church and refused to rebaptise a prospective member who had been sprinkled....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Personally, I view the such a person (the pm) as never having been baptised in the first place.
     

Share This Page

Loading...