A Valid Baptism?

Way back in the good ol'days, the churches we were members of, would not accept other baptisms unless it came from one of like faith and practice.

I understand the biblical criteria for baptism calls for the proper candidate, the proper motive, the proper mode, and the proper authority & to qualify for scriptural baptism, one must be saved and willing.

To me, if a woman baptized you, it wouldn't be scriptural anyway, so no, we wouldn't consider this baptism valid.

 

It's an interesting question, Brother Glen.

The observance of the Lord's Supper and Baptism is one way in which we Baptist have varied slightly from Scripture. My interpretation, particularly of Baptism, is that ANY Christian is qualified to perform this ordinance as mandated by the Scriptures.

However, those who have come before us recognized that a certain sanctity must be preserved in the implementation of these ordinances, thus tradition has taken hold that it requires an ordained minister. I don't think that this is a bad thing but a person who is immersed for the correct reasons has shown obedience to Christ, IMHO.

For the purposes of joining the church, I would turn to the autonomous church for their decision on the matter. If a majority of members feel that the baptism was inappropriate or invalid to qualify the person in question for membership, there is certainly no harm in re-baptizing them.

The salvific Baptism of the Spirit comes from on high. To me, who dips them in water is not as important.

 

I am glad that very soon after I joined my current church, one of the first actions requiring a vote of the church was an amendment to bylaws regarding membership. The motion was that if a person wishes to join the church, baptism is not required provided that person was a believer in Jesus Christ and was baptised [immersed] after professing that belief. This changed the rule at that time that such a baptism must in a Baptist church. New baptism for a new believer, of course, was not altered by this action.

The fact that the previous baptism of person in question was done by a woman IMO should not be relevant. If it is, according to the 'new' church, then shall they do an investigation of every new member to see if the one who did the baptising met the new church's requirements?... such as minimum age, marital status and/or history, education, length of time as a Christian or as a minister... I don't think that is what matters. What matters is the sincerity of beliefs and statement of such of the one who was baptised, not the one who dipped him or her.

[ September 15, 2002, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

If it is not like faith and practice it is not scriptual. The church that did the baptizing is not scriptual or they would hold to the Husband of one wife , not one husband. Woman pastors is heresy. Any heresy in the New Testament order, shouldn't be acceptable. My opinion and I am a pastor's wife, Have them get baptized, sounds like they just got wet the first time.

 

The man who performed my baptism was an adulterer (caught twice!!) although no one knew it at the time... My point?

The person who performs the ritual has no bearing on the act of obedience itself. The baptismal candidate is the one performing the act of obedience, not the facilitator.

If we are truly Baptists, we do not believe in a priestly system where the facilitator of the baptism or the water have any special power or revevance to the act of obedience.

My baptism was valid because I did it in an act of obedience to my Lord and Savior as the first good work of my new life in Christ. The fact that my pastor was an adulterer makes no difference. If it did, there's a lot of people who are not baptized properly because the person who facilitated their baptism did not measure up to commonly-accepted standards of Christian living.

Even if you don't accept women as pastors, it makes no difference.

 

The difference is this was the Pastor's sin not the churches. But to let them hire a woman knowing this is not God's way is heresy and is not excepted. This makes the church unscriptual if it is not following scriptual practices. If the church who baptized you knew your pastor was an adulter and still left him practice this ordiance God help them. If they didn't know at the time the church is not held accountable. It does go back to the local church.

 

Is not any Christian allowed to perform a baptism? Where in scripture are we told that it matters who the baptiser is???

 

Come on folks. God's promises do not bear on our understanding. He can take care of himself and his own.

Bro. Adam

 

Only a New Testament church can baptize. Not a person, but a church. If the church in question meets the biblical criteria for being a New Testament church, then the baptism is valid regardless of who helped the person into the tank, under the water, and out of the tank.

 

This is an interesting question. John Gill believed the authority to baptize lay with the pastor of the church. The truth is the authority belongs only to the church, because it was to the church the commission was given, not to individuals, they should baptize under the authority of a scriptural church, and they should be ordained members, pastors, or deacons.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

Hello Bro. Dallas,

Let me say that I agree with you (and the others) regarding the authority of the church to baptize. But this thread started me to thinking about the Book of Acts. Specifically when Phillip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch. Here is an example of an individual member, one of the first deacons, of the original Jerusalem Church baptizing a new believer all alone in a stream by the road side. Did his authority to baptize come from the fact that he was a deacon in the Jerusalem Chruch, or because of Christ's command to his followers in Matt. 28:18-20, or simply because God told him to go and meet this Ethiopian on the road?

I have to say that I would discount the fact that he was a deacon as being what gave him the authority to baptize. Acts 6 makes it clear that these men, the deacons, were chosen for the specific purpose of serving the widows of the church; thus, freeing the Apostles to study, preach, and teach the Word of God. Therefore, I maintian that our modern practice of allowing our "Deacon Boards" to have authority within the church is not scriptural. Deacons were/are to simply be servants of and for the church body. That is why they do not have a requirement in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 to be "able to teach" as is required of Elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

Can or should Deacons assist with the preparations for baptism, clean and fill the pool, help people into and out of the water, have towels etc. handy? By all means that is serving the church. Does being a deacon give one the authority to baptize? I don't think so. However, Matthew 28:18-20 is a command from the Lord to all of his disciples. This is where we all get the authority to baptize.

Now, how does a believer gain membership in a local church? 1) By outright baptism. 2) By transferring a letter that states he/she was baptised by a church of like faith and practice. 3) By making a formal statement that he/she confesses Christ as Lord and has been baptised according to that particular local church's faith and practice.

 

I too found this to be a very interesting and thought provoking question. Like BibleboyII I automatically thought about the Ethiopian.

This is what I considered. First of all Baptism doesn't save a person from sin. Without Christ, a baptized sinner is just a wet sinner. There has to be a change of heart through salvation to rid one from sin. After we have accepted Christ we are to be baptized out of obediance to God. A Baptist church will not accept a baptism by sprinkling because it is an invalid form of baptism. To atain membership in a Baptist church they must be baptized again. If the church the person comes from baptized in a way that would be seen as unbiblical, or the church itself is unbiblical the correct baptism must be performed correctly to gain membership. A church with a woman pastor is unbiblical.

Here are a few other thoughts I have had.

If a person won't submit to the authority of the church in their decision to be baptized correctly, do you want them as members, and does that person really want to be a member there. A true believer should desire to live biblically correct, if they choose not to, how good of a member will they be. Most churches have enough not practicing members, why add to it. The act of baptism is a means of testifying your belief to others, as a witness, so why not be a witness. The pastor can state at the baptism that this believer had been saved but was submitting to proper baptism, this could be a mighty testimony to others that Scripture is to be lived out.

[ September 15, 2002, 08:41 AM: Message edited by: FearNot ]

 

Absolutely.

The object of the candidate's faith is the validating element in baptism.

 

If it is not like faith and practice it is not scriptual.

Can you prove this using your KJVO?

 

DocCas, where in the scriptures does it say that we need to be baptized by a church?

 

Tyndale,

The earliest "rebaptisms" (apparently including the one in Acts 19) were administered because of an invalid administrator.

The earliest record (apart from the Bible) of rebaptisms were the Montanists who began to rebaptize the Romanists because they considered their churches to be schismatic and therefore their baptisms invalid. The Lutheran historian Moshiem claims there were 13 varieties of Anabaptists in Germany at the time of the reformation who regarded each others baptisms as invalid.

After the division between the Hardshells and the Missionary Baptists in the early 1800s, it became common for both Hardshells and Missionaries to regard the other's baptisms as invalid, and both, as a general rule, considered Campbellite baptism to be invalid.

From a biblical perspective, the authority to baptizes rests in the church because it was to the church that the great commission was given. In most Baptist churches today, the duty of dispensing baptism is assigned to the pastor.

If a church ordains a woman as pastor then I would question the validity of the church itself and therefore it's baptisms. By the same token, I (being a Missionary Baptist) would not acknowledge a Hardshell church as being valid and therefore would not recognize baptism administered by a Hardshell minister.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[/qb][/QUOTE]DocCas, where in the scriptures does it say that we need to be baptized by a church?[/QB][/QUOTE]

Mesly,

Where in the Scriptures does it say that all believers are authorized to baptize?

If the person who baptized you later decided he was not really a believer, would you consider your baptism invalid?

If not, then do you not really believe that all men, not just all believers, are given the authority to baptism?

Mark Osgatharp

 

Matthew 28:18-20.