Does Your baptist Church "Honor" Baptisms Done By Non baptists As Valid?

Not so quickly. Look at the Great Commission:

Therefore go, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I commanded you. Behold, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. (Matthew 28:19-20)

1. They were to lead them to Christ.
2. They were to disciple them (teach them).
3. Then they were to baptize them.
4. Then they were to teach to observe all things that Christ had taught them.

Let's not treat baptism so flippantly.

Perhaps, in those few summarized verses we don't know all that transpired. How much did Philip "preach"? After the eunuch was saved, how much more was he discipled or taught? As to the end of the story, it is still common today to ask the candidate before being baptized to respond once again to a salvation question. This could have been what Philip was doing. And finally this incident isn't as isolated as you may want it to be. Philip was a member of the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem and baptized with the authority of that church. In chapter six he was chosen as one of their "servants" or deacons. He was an official representative of that church. He did not represent any mythical universal church.

I would say that you have the man made tradition.
I support my views by Scripture.

 

I have highlighted the crux of your post and it is right on the money. In my view, Jesus specifically gave the authority to make disciples, baptize and teach to the Eleven, which constituted the only church in existence at the time. The Commission was given to an assembly, and by extension, each succeeding New Testament assembly.

And as Acts progresses, we see the FBC Jerusalem doing exactly that--making disciples, baptizing and teaching.

The Jerusalem church sent Peter and John to Samaria to validate the converts saved under Philip's preaching. Paul and Silas went on their missionary journey with the blessing of FBC Antioch.

Paul himself told the elders from FBC Ephesus that their congregation had been purchased by the blood of Jesus.

To bypass the local church in carrying out the Commission is to diminish the very entity charged specifically charged with carrying it out.

 

One of the pastors baptizes in our church. The candidate must have a clear understanding of his salvation and the desire to be baptized. He also must understand what baptism is, and why he should be baptized.

Not to derail the thread; Do we accept baptisms from other churches?
We accept baptism by immersion from "churches of like faith and order" to use the term loosely, as long as the candidate understands both salvation and baptism (and the baptism was indeed a scriptural baptism).
We would accept a person baptized in a Brethren Church and a Christian Missionary Alliance church since both are evangelical and baptize by immersion. Folks coming from those churches are likely to have a clear testimony of salvation and understand why they were baptized.
Some non-denominational may be the same way, but not all.

The Church of Christ is a cult. We would never accept their baptism.
We don't accept the baptism of a person from a Charismatic Church thought the person may be saved and baptized by immersion. We believe that though they may be saved, they ought to make a clean break from the error of that movement and be re-baptized showing that they no longer will have any association with the Charismatic movement again. Baptism is a symbol of death (in its burial). We want them to see that movement as dead to themselves and have absolutely no association with it even though there may be some Christians in it.

Therefore we weigh the testimony of each person on a case by case basis.

 

Calvinism is not something to divide over IMO. We both believe the Baptist distinctives and have been saved and scripturally baptized. That is what is important. A Calvinist re-baptized will be a Calvinist still. What good will another baptism do?

We are an IFB church. I challenge you to look up some IFB statements of Faith. You will find in many of them, if not most, a clear statement of separation of the Charismatic movement, and perhaps a statement that the gifts have ceased. You may not find that in all, but in many of them.
We have no fellowship with the Charismatic movement and preach against the error that they teach and spread. It only confuses people. They put experience as more important than the Bible and therefore many who think they are saved are not. They think they are saved because they had an experience. This is a sweeping generalization, obviously, and not true of everyone. It is one of the movements that will do more damage to the cause of true Biblical Christianity than any other. It should be avoided at any cost. It is within this movement that most of your false prophets like Benny Hinn (the person who believes there are nine persons in the trinity) arise. Again, experience is more important than doctrine. Do away with doctrine. Doctrine divides.

 

Fine with me. The key is that the church allows (same as authorizes) whom it will perform the baptism on its behalf.

You're assuming that the Body of Christ is split between those in heaven and those on earth. There is a sense in which we can refer to the Church in the prospective sense, such as when we all gather in the great General Assembly in heaven. Until then, your assumption that part of the U-Church is in heaven is just that, an assumption. And if it is, how does it function? Certainly not in the same way as on earth.

On earth, however, there are only local churches.

By the way, we know what the role of local churches is. We have the Great Commission and instructions and examples in the New Testament. What is the role of the Universal Church beyond just existing? If it exists, it is fractured and terribly divided. It includes believers who hold to error. It does not assemble (in disobedience to the scripture), it does not send missionaries or give offerings. It has no reason to exist.

 

One quick addendum to my post #69:

I have read on this board of some Baptist Churches (I think it's something like Old Regular) will baptize every candidate for membership, regardless of their previous membership. That goes a bit further than I would, but at least it resolves any question about the validity of the baptism or the validity of the baptizing church.

 

Redefining doesn't help. It's still a U-church and it still doesn't exist. That's why they call it Universal Invisible. Nobody can find it.

 

Then they should be referred to as "the family of God," or perhaps even "the bride of Christ," but not the universal church, for church (ekklesia) means an assembly, and an assembly must always be local by very definition. For example, "To the assembly at Corinth." An assembly cannot be universal.

 

Love the reasoning...

 

Works for me JesusFan:

All believers are assembled (hands, feet, ears, eyes, head) into the Body the Christ, the Church. I think some here are trying to force a dissection. :smilewinkgrin: Maybe thinking a little more highly of the local assembly than they should be???

(Rom 12:5) So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

So who is “we”? Back up a verse and see:

(Rom 12:3) For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

Believers at Rome, one itty-bitty individual local church in Rome??? No, all the believers (every man) of Rome.

(1Co 12:12) For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

So also is Christ, what??? = One Body.

(1Co 12:13) For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Who are baptized into that one Body??? Jews, Gentiles, bond, free, …ALL made to drink into one Spirit. (which are baptized into what? = One Body/Christ/the Spirit of Christ)

(1Co 12:14) For the body is not one member, but many.

Seems pretty clear to me!

 

What about it? That is the one place where all believers will be assembled together--in heaven and only in heaven. Then it can truly be called an assembly.
As for now, where on this earth can all believers assemble together?
Who will preach to them all?
Who are the deacons of this great assembly?
Who will take up the offering?
I sure would like to see what a business meeting of a universal church (assembly) would look like :laugh:

The whole concept is mythical, and totally non-functional.

 

Yep, the assembly to which Paul was writing, at Corinth. The one Jesus purchased with his own blood, just as he did for FBC Ephesus.

Yep, the one body which is FBC Corinth.

In v 13, the word you translate as "by" is the Greek "en," which may be translated "in." In one spirit....not by one Spirit.

The baptism in this verse is water baptism, the door to the local church. Led by the Spirit (or in a spirit of unity), we are water-baptized into the assembly.

And while we're in Chapter 12, let's go a little further, where Paul identifies who the Body is.
v.27 Now YE are the body of Christ.....

YE who? FBC Corinth, to whom he is writing.

 

And, to try to bring the thread back to the OP, the water-baptism into the body (FBC Corinth) establishes baptism as the door to the local church; and it establishes the local church as the proper administrator of baptism.

With that authority, the local church will decide whom it will baptize, what is proper baptism, and whether a baptism by another church meets the criteria it has set for membership.

And the local church, therefore, must determine whom it will allow to baptize on its behalf.

 

It is never flippant to take the meaning of the text directly from the text without adding your denomination-supporting personal beliefs. You add so much to the actual, simple text & claim that my views are based on tradition? The "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem" statement is beyond ridiculous. Such eisigesis would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous. I stated the facts of the passage; you have ventured off into a fantasy world where the text can be added to with impunity. Where are the verses which support your views of:
1. a prebaptist Baptist church?
2. the authority to baptize is given to a religous group & not to individual believers(without assumption or presupposition)?
3. Philip was a "member" of a religious organization as defined by your denomination?