1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

"Rebaptism"

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

Top Posters
  1. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    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?
     
    #1 Michael Wrenn, Dec 16, 2001
  2. Don

    Don Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2000
    Messages:
    11,048
    Likes Received:
    321
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #2 Don, Dec 16, 2001
  3. swaimj

    swaimj <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.
     
    #3 swaimj, Dec 16, 2001
  4. Psalm145 3

    Psalm145 3 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.
     
    #4 Psalm145 3, Dec 16, 2001
  5. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    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?
     
    #5 Michael Wrenn, Dec 16, 2001
  6. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #6 Squire Robertsson, Dec 16, 2001
  7. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    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.
     
    #7 Michael Wrenn, Dec 16, 2001
  8. rlvaughn

    rlvaughn Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Messages:
    10,544
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Faith:
    Baptist
    <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.
     
    #8 rlvaughn, Dec 16, 2001
  9. Kiffin

    Kiffin 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.
     
    #9 Kiffin, Dec 16, 2001
  10. John Wells

    John Wells 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.
     
    #10 John Wells, Dec 17, 2001
  11. Doc Yankum

    Doc Yankum 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
     
    #11 Doc Yankum, Dec 17, 2001
  12. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,371
    Likes Received:
    2,405
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
    #12 Squire Robertsson, Dec 17, 2001
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Loading...