Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by SaggyWoman, Sep 7, 2008.
How about "none of the above?" :laugh:
Any immersion in water that is done in obedience to the Lord's command.
Given that the man converted on the highway did not have an audience at his baptism, they key is "obedience" and not as a "witness".
The act of baptism can be by immersion in the Church of England and of believers. This baptism is not the same as their covenant baptism of infants. If the candidate is being immersed for the right reason, why can't it be acceptable.
None of us are perfect in theology when were first saved and prolly when we were baptiszed. Why would we demand perfect understanding of theology of a candidate?
I do think some organizations baptize prematurely, but that is another discussion.
"Any immersion in water that is done in obedience to the Lord's command."
I agree Jim
Scriptural baptism meets the following criteria:
The right subject. A believer
The right design. To picture the gospel, and to demonstrate outwardly what has happened inwardly--death to sin, rising to a new life in Christ.
The right mode. Immersion.
And the most controversial, the right authority. This is where most of us have different opinions. The right authority is a Baptist church of like faith and order, or a non-denominational church of like faith and order. Getting any of the first three criteria disqualifies an organization from calling itself a New Testament church.
Jesus walked a long way to submit to baptism by the right authority--John the Baptist.
They are all 'acceptable' -
Well, that is, acceptable enough to start a BIG argument over, anyway.
Not all who baptize by immersion have an understanding about salvation and that baptism is for believers only. Some do not teach salvation, or that baptism id for salvation or baptism completes salvation. These baptisms can not be accepted as they are foreign to the NT.
what he said
wow. infant baptism got a positive vote...wow do we not understand our baptist distinctives.
So, Jesus was baptized by a Jew to demonstrate His conversion!!!!!
Baptism is a step of obedience. Jesus was absolutely obedient to the Father.
As to te one who baptizes, John Smythe is accepted by many as the one who started the modern Baptist Church...he poured water on his own head as there was no one else about to baptize him in Holland. I am not sure, historically, that all future members of the early English Baptist churches were immersed. In fact, John Smythe preferred the Mennonite Brethren church.
Personally, I always taught that baptism was a step of obedience to the Lord....be saved and be baptized. It was an outward symbol of an inward grace. It is always total immersion in water. The doer is irrelevant. He/she is not the subject of baptism. The person being baptized is.
I was baptized in a Plymouth Brethren Gospel Hall. The Baptist Union had no difficulty accepting my baptism prior to ordination.
Yes, I was VERY surprised to see that, too!
I voted only for Baptist because the others I know of were all infant baptism, or the CoC false baptism/salvation doctrine, or the Pentecostal which believes you must speak in tongues and/or have a 2nd infilling of the HS, and of course the Mormon one is totally unacceptable since they not Christian at all.
I don't know enough about the AME to say.
The Church of God - depends on which Church of God you mean. There are 2 major ones and a whole lot of other Churches of God.
I marked off anybody who doesn't accept sprinkling, pouring, or anointing (not to mention performs the "rite" on infants) as my answers.
I doubt if you really mean that it's okay to accept a baptism by a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, or the town drunk.
For church membership, I would accept believer's baptism by immersion in a Trinitarian format, period.
That would not necessarily preclude any of those listed except the Mormon baptism.
I believe that baptism by professing believers may be an option in most of the choices.
I checked Baptist only and I dare say that most of the churches listed would not accept our Baptism if we were to join their church.
I too am surprised that in a Baptist Only forum, 3 people voted for the Catholic Baptism to be accepted. Maybe they just snuck in here and voted?
What about those who do not require salvation before baptism, or who teach baptism is salvation, or that baptism completes salvation?
these are not biblibal salvations and baptisms, and are all to be rejected by a NT church.
I agree with MNJacob, except I would accept believer baptisms that are not done by immersion as irregular but valid. There are some Anabaptists who only baptize by immersion in living water, so in the winter when none is accessible they practice baptism by pouring (a practice as old as the time of the Didache). I see no need to consider such a baptism invalid. I think the use of baptistries is irregular too, but I don't consider baptisms performed in them to be invalid either.
The key is that it is believer baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This would exclude Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons.
I must not be a proper NT Christian because I think there's a good case from the NT itself that baptism is the normative way of confessing faith in Jesus Christ and being joined to his body. It's not the only way as there are exceptions, but it is the normative way. I don't have a problem with branches of Christianity that take this teaching from the NT more seriously than most Baptists today do and include believer baptism as part of the normative conversion process. In fact, I think many of our Baptist forefathers believed this to be the case.
baptism not done by immersion is not a biblical baptism, and can not be called so.
It should never be accepted unless the person is on death bed, is saved and requestes baptism. But for the average person who is not currently dying and is to go onliving, nothing but immersion is acceptable.
Am I right, you don't think baptism is for believers only, or that a person does not need to be a confessing believer to be baptiszed.
DonnA, I'm not sure how you could infer either from my post. There are only two things I would die for regarding baptism. First, that it is believer baptism. Second, that it is done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I believe that immersion in living water is the best way, but I recognize that there are many irregular ways out there (sometimes for good reason, sometimes for convenience, and sometimes for other reasons) and I see no need to make them invalid because they are irregular.
As for what's "biblical" (a useless word on this board), one could make the case that the practice of making baptism only a naked symbol of obedience doesn't match up very well with what Scripture says about baptism.