Baptist Brider Position?

I was once in a church that commanded all be rebaptized to enter fellowship.
Even other baptists.

Must have been a True pedigree church.

 

It's been a while since I stopped by and posted on the BB. Good to be back. My wife and I are currently working/praying about this issue, and I've boiled the issues down (in my mind) to a few simple questions. And in quick reply to Tinytim's most recent post, it is not necessary to "prove" anything with history, since "history" is not what we are called to have faith in--but in the written Word of God.

First, wherein was _authority_ given to anyone or any group to baptize? For example, many point to the Great Commission to answer this question, but Jesus's disciples baptized long before Matt 28. Also, Scripture shows in Acts 1:27 that John's baptism was also acceptable as entrance into the Church. In short, I have found that only _being_ baptized was an issue, not whodonit. If this point is wrong, please show via the Word where it is wrong.

Second, ...well, really the first question is the nut of it all for me. If a certain group, calling themselves Christians is to be illegitimized, what is the criteria wherein they are not legitimate? Certainly from the Corinthian epistles, open fornication is NOT criteria for being NOT a church. And from the scriptures dealing with the Lord's Supper, nowhere is there an indication of a church being/becoming NOT a church if the members take it unworthily--only that those [individuals] who do drink damnation upon themselves. These arguments go on and on. The only one that I have a big question on is baptism--who can do it, and who can't, and why?

-Pluvivs

 

Is this really such a hard question? Or has it already been answered in another forum, and I've just missed it?

-Pluvivs

 

Personally didn't see your message before. But, I haven't been posting much lately, just in one or two forums.

Who can baptize? The example we see from scripture talks about the "elders" of the church--mainly the apostles, the recognized leaders, etc.--doing it, so that example has passed down to us and is practiced today by the pastor and other recognized leaders of the church.

Who can't? If we follow the same example, we don't see brand new Christians baptizing, or those that aren't recognized as some form of leadership in the church.

Certainly up for discussion, as I don't consider myself the foremost authority.

 

The church is the bride not the Baptist church. Who are the guests? Those followers of Jehovah who are not in the church. OT saints should number quite a few. The angels, who have always been very curious about us, would be fellow celebrants.

 

Haven't been here for a few weeks. I am always amazed at the ignorance of people who call them selves good Christians and good Baptists and their lack of knowledge and commen sense.
Below are two posts that i w/reply to for now at the end of the 2 posts.
_________________________________________________
Grasshopper
posted February 13, 2004 05:31 p.m.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Only those with scriptural baptisms will be in the Bride of Christ and that only leaves Bible believing Baptists.
--------------------------------------------------
All those Bible Churches are just out of luck huh?
Somebody ought to tell the people of John MacArthur's church their not really baptized. Sounds so Roman Catholic.

MY REPLY: To answer your post ... Yes, the baptisms by and in Bible Churches are OUT OF LUCK as far as being in the Bride of Christ. If they are saved, they will be there, but not as the Bride, only as a guest.
As for John McArthur ... you sound as if he is your pope... I don't care if it is John McArthor or Billy Graham or Joe Whang Do .... Unscriptural baptism is unscriptural baptism.

You gave NO Scriptural answer ... just retoric.
D.L. Moody was a great man... he was not immersed and he will only be a guest at the marriage supper

As far as sounding Romanist ... NO ... those of you who are universalists are the ones that are and sound Romanist. The accepting of baptisms from other denominations id playing into the ploy of the Romanists who want to have all churches into one ... the R.C. Church... the Great Whore of the Book of Revelation. I have no use for Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholics - I have won hundreds and love them ... they make great Baptists ... the RC church is a cult.

NEXT POST
_________________________________________________
Then tiny tim posted:

Would someone give me evidence that "Baptists" existed in, say, 1179 AD.

It is impossible because the baptist denomination did not exist then.
To believe that it did is to believe in a fairy tale. Sounds nice, but has no historical backing.
MY REPLY

My friend ... you protest to much.
Baptist are not Protestant... never were.
Again, you have not proven your case ... just retoric.
The detractors of Baptists have put Baptists as far back as the Apsotles ... as far back as 100 A.D. we were the Donatists - Paulacians - Ana Baptists etc.
If one would just READ an study history, they would know whay they are Baptists and where we came from.
In 1529 ... BEFORE THE DATE YOU MENTIONED ... The Roman Catholic Mandate of Speir, April, 1529 ... NOTE ... 1529 ... declares that the Anabaptists were hundreds of years old and had often been condemned."

Cardinal Hosius, member of the Council of Trent, 1560 BEFORE THE DATE YOU MENTIONED... refers to the Anabaptists for "these 1200 years past."

"Baptists were formerly called Anabaptists ... we were the original Waldenses. We have been considered the only society that has stood since the days of the apostles ..." Ypeij Dermout 1819

MOST Bible churches came out of Presbyterians which came out of ROME.. as did the Methodists .. Episcapalians ... Church of England ... etc. & we could go on.

I will not, and sound Baptists ... historically ... have not... taken baptism from unscriptural churches.
Well meaning folks with unscriptural baptisms .. if they are saved .. will be at the marriage supper... but not in the Bride.


__________________________________________________

 

I've studied the beliefs of some of these groups and if someone came into a IFB church today espousing those same beliefs, that person would be shown the left foot of fellowship right out the door for being a heretic. You would not allow them to be in those errors and be a member of your church, would you? If not, why do you claim them as baptist ancestors?

 

None of these latest posts have even a hint of answer to my question, with the respectful exception of Don's. However, example does not constitute proof. Is there any scripture showing that ONLY a particular group (elders, preachers, Baptists, apostles, etc) were autorized to baptize?

 

My particular brand of Baptist has traditionally taught that the Baptist church is the Bride of Christ and that only a Baptist church can administer true scriptural baptism. I disagree strongly with this position, and refuse to preach it from the pulpit. Why? Complete lack of scriptural evidence. One of my biggest pet peeves concerning this is that when I have asked people for "clear" scriptural support for this view, I get answers like "that is the way Baptists have taught for 2000 years". Or when Christ gave the great commision in Matt. 28 ,He was referring to the Baptist church. Sorry, but that takes a bit to much assumption for me. Anything we teach, if it doesnt have "clear" scriptural support,is nothing more than a tradition of man.
Mark,7:13 "making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down."
Look at it this way; If we say that only the Baptist church is the Bride, we then face the problem of "which brand of Baptist?" Is it the SBC, the missionary Baptist (if so ,ABA,or BMA, yes there is a diff.) Freewill Baptist, Primitive Baptist,Landmark Baptist, The new KJVO Baptist (no kidding) ,Reg. Baptist, and the list goes on.
Which one would be the true Bride of Christ, surely not all of them?
My position is this ; The Bride of Christ (the CHURCH) = All the saved, those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior. All the saved of the Church age. This does not include old testament saints, who I believe are some of those reffered to as friends of the Bride.
Well ,thats my 2 cents worth. Agree with me, or tear it up.

 

Serious question:
If one holds a Baptist Bride position in which other "non-Baptist" Christians are the Marriage Supper "guests," does only the Baptist Bride get raptured out- e.g., do the "guests" go to, or do they stay through the tribulation?

(I'm assuming Baptist Bride-ers are Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil Dispensationalists- I really have no idea if that's the case)

 

The ABA churches I am familiar with would have said the guests go too, because they are guests at the Wedding which will take place while Tribulation occurs on Earth.

Karen (not ABA member )

 

While it is clear that the "baptistic" traditions predate the name and it is also clear that our forebearers were never a part of the RCC, that does not translate that only Baptist administer Scriptural Baptism. It is also beyond the teaching of Scripture to state that only those who are baptized whether or not that baptism took place in a Baptist Church are the Bride of Christ. Those who promote such teachings are standing on traditions of men and not in the truth of God's Word. Be careful one leads to destruction while the other leads to eternal life.
Bro Tony

 

Finally, a more well-thought-out post in regards to my question! Thank you, Bro To. I desire greatly to see scriptural proofs of the Brider position, for I cannot find them myself.

 

Personally know a catholic chaplain by the name of Father Kelly (yes, I know it's a stereotype, but that was his name--really!).

He once pulled me and the command chief, who was a southern baptist, to the side and whispered to us, "You know, you Baptists got it right with that whole infant and immersion thing."

 

Some other things to think about in the Scripture to answer Pluvivs question about who has the authority to baptize. By what local church authority or denomination did Philip baptize the Ethiopian eunich? If one wants to take this unbiblical "brider" belief to the extreme than Jesus' baptism would exclude Him from His own supper! OOPS I forget He was baptized by John the Baptist--He can still come By the way I wonder if John was IFB, SBC, AB, GARB? It is not really my intention to be facicious, but the Scripture states we are baptized unto Christ, not a local church or denomination. It is His baptism and does not belong to the Baptist or any other group. You cannot prove otherwise solely using Scripture.
Blessings,
Bro Tony

 

Bro Tony, I don't know if Philip's execution of baptism is germane, since he, being an apostle, certainly had specific authority given to him my Jesus Christ himself through the Great Commission. He would not have needed the construct of any particular body, church, or organization to have authority to baptise. The same can be said about John the Baptist and his baptismal candidates.

How about I pose the question this way (for the non Brider crowd): if an unregenerate person baptises someone who is genuinely saved and genuinely seeking true water immersion baptism, is that baptism anything more than a bath?

 

Pluvivs,

Interesting question, could it happen? I think so. I knew a pastor of a Baptist Church when I was in College (Many years ago) who had been pastoring for several years and then one day came under the conviction of the Holy Spirit and he was saved. He had baptized many people in that church who had made professions of faith in Christ. Now are all of their baptisms invalid or are they valid because it was their testimony of their genuine faith regardless of the individual putting them under the water? Interesting!!

 

From my experience with BB'ers, they make authority a foregone conclusion. I have strong leanings that way, since I come from a decidedly Brider background.

This seems as if it is important enough that God's Word would have more to say on it. However, I am at a loss one way or the other. That is, I cannot find "the church" under any definition being given specific authority [to baptise], and yet neither do I find anyone other than the Elect from administering it.

I was reminded of my thoughts on marriage recently (since I was, in fact, recently married). What makes a marraige? Is it the licence? The Wedding? Is it the pastor or notary recording it? Is it the parents blessing it? This could be a good start to a new thread, but it parallels this discussion in my mind: who has the authority and who doesn't?

I say this because few people would re-marry after getting saved or baptised, because it is agreed that marraige is administered outside of the church (for Christians, marraige was started in the Garden, way way way before Christ's earthly ministry). However, the same cannot be said of baptism. I rest.

 

In the O.T., baptism did exist. It was called ceremonial washings and was administered by the priests. Today, the Church is called a kingdom of priests. Each and every believer has the authority and repsonsibility to offer up living sacrifices (our lives) to God as well as our praises and worship.

1 Peter 2:5
Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

Therefore, I think that any true believer can baptise a new believer - not just the pastor or someone a church votes to have baptise.

 

Can you draw that thought out to say that unbelievers cannot baptize? Or, more specifically, are we to rebaptize those who were not baptized by a true believer?

-Pluvivs-who-will-not-let-the-thread-die