Baptists and the Necessity of Immersion

[mercygate]

Baptist churches always have a “baptristry” – a large tub that they fill with water. This done, it is always possible to immerse.

That person would have to be rebaptized because an involuntary baptism doesn’t count.

Baptists have no connection to the Apostolic tradition. They’re not even connected to Luther and Calvin. Baptist history begins in the 1600s, a century after Luther. It’s a wholly unique group that sprung up on it’s own. So — to argue history is to speak a language that Baptists don’t understand. If you want to convince them of the errors of their ways you have to FIRST convince them that Christian Church history matters. Until you do that they’ll believe that it is YOU who is adding something to the Word of God, and they are extremely protective of the Word of God.

How do they react when they find out about how the canon of the New Testament came about?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Hello! I just took a peek at your profile and had to laugh. For a long time I called myself a “Baptimethocostalutheranglican.” I just had my Confirmation on the 12th. :dancing:I’ll be praying for you! I know exactly where you are right now, I was there a year ago!!

The NT epistles explicitely connect Christian baptism with the imagery of “being buried with Christ” and then “being raised with Him in newness of life.” Immersion fits this picture. Sprinkling does not. Therefore – we immerse.

Yes, but (and I’m not picking on you, really, just throwing it out there for everyone on the thread) other Scriptures talk about “sprinkling clean water on you, you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses” (Ez 36:25) Numbers 8 and 19 also describe ritual uncleanness being eradicated by the sprinkling of water. Baptists say that baptism is the outward sign OF an inward change, but the passage in Ezekiel says that this is an outward sign to bring about an inward change. This is a foreshadowing of NT baptism, wouldn’t you agree?

It’s pretty clear from the gospels that Jesus walked into the river for his baptism. We think it follows that he was immersed.

Is it remotely possible that he stood in the water and John poured water over his head? Coming up out of the water doesn’t necessarily mean Jesus was completely immersed in it. If you’re standing in a river, the only way “out” is “up” the riverbank!

Baptist churches recognize other denominations as Christian, and they’re happy to have other Christians participate all day long in all of their activities, but you cannot become a member of a Baptist church unless you are baptized by immersion. Membership is required for serving as teacher, or as a deacon, or for holding a position on the ruling council. Non-members are invited to serve, worship, study, play, etc, equally with members. You could attend a Baptist church for years and not know who are the members and who are not.

Yet another thing I always found … interesting. For something that doesn’t render you in or out of Heaven, it’s sure important for rendering you in or out of the Baptist church as an active member. One would think they’re putting more requirements on a person than God has.

 

[scottm]

How do they react when they find out about how the canon of the New Testament came about?

They avoid the discussion altogether.

Is it remotely possible that he stood in the water and John poured water over his head?

In their view, no. He was immersed. End of discussion. The hows and whys of baptism is a theological issue to them. Baptists will go both ways on ordaining women, on whether to serve wine or grape juice, on this that and the other – but they will not budge on the act of baptizing someone. In their eyes you’re messing with Jesus when you mess with baptism, and that’s intolerable.

To convince them of their errors you have to convince them that (1) Church history actually exists, and (2) that Church history matters. And that’s not easy.

 

[dparker]

That brings up a question: Say I am a baptized Christian and want to join your congragation. I was baptized as an adult by Presbyterians, and consider myself to be born again, namely, as an adult I have repented of my sins and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Savior.

Would I have to be baptized in your church?

No. Absolutely not. Believer’s baptism doesn’t care what name is on the door.

Second scenario: I am a Christian who was baptized as an infant. I have have had a powerful born-again experience and have repented of and confessed my post-baptismal sin while reaffirming my faith in Jesus Christ. I consider this to be the fruit of the Holy Spirit as received when I was baptized.

Would I have to be baptized in your church?

No. You may hear teaching that conflicts with your belief of infant baptism, but it will be up to you. If the Holy Spirit convicts, fine. If not, it is no basis to break fellowship.

I met my wife (raised Catholic) at a singles meeting of our church. (affiliated with the AoG, but independent) and nobody ever quizzed her about such things. They trust the Holy Spirit to reveal and convict. ~10 years after we met she announced that she wanted to be baptized as a believer. She was baptized in the Jordan River in Israel during a family trip there. It was a powerful experience for her and entirely her own decision.

Third scenario: I am a baptized member of your church; I commit serious sin, and repent of it, am I then re-baptized? Could I be re-baptized?

Up to you. If the Spirit leads you to be re-baptized, you won’t be questioned. Nobody will tell you that it is needed.

 

[mercygate]

No. Absolutely not. Believer’s baptism doesn’t care what name is on the door.

No. You may hear teaching that conflicts with your belief of infant baptism, but it will be up to you. If the Holy Spirit convicts, fine. If not, it is no basis to break fellowship.

I met my wife (raised Catholic) at a singles meeting of our church. (affiliated with the AoG, but independent) and nobody ever quizzed her about such things. They trust the Holy Spirit to reveal and convict. ~10 years after we met she announced that she wanted to be baptized as a believer. She was baptized in the Jordan River in Israel during a family trip there. It was a powerful experience for her and entirely her own decision.

Up to you. If the Spirit leads you to be re-baptized, you won’t be questioned. Nobody will tell you that it is needed.

Thank you. I appreciate your taking the time to walk me through this.

For the record, many people who were baptized as infants come to a great awakening in their lives, when the Holy Spirit grabs 'em by the hair of the neck and shakes 'em up. The desire to be baptized can almost burn. I went through a time when I wanted not only to be baptized, but to be baptized naked in the Jordan. The early Church used to baptize people in their birthday suit. Seems totally appropriate and desirable to me (but I can see why THAT custom fell into disuse – and I don’t think it was because of the cold!).

Eastern Orthodox refer to confession as “the mystery of second Baptism.” The Council of Trent called it “a second plank after shipwreck.” Lemme tell ya, when I came into the Catholic Church and made my life confession, it was, subjectively speaking, very much a kind of baptism. Objectively, it was a true rebirth in Christ. I was (once again) “fully immersed” in Christ by the Holy Spirit.

 

[allischalmers]

Baptist churches always have a “baptristry” – a large tub that they fill with water. This done, it is always possible to immerse.

That person would have to be rebaptized because an involuntary baptism doesn’t count.

Baptists have no connection to the Apostolic tradition. They’re not even connected to Luther and Calvin. Baptist history begins in the 1600s, a century after Luther. It’s a wholly unique group that sprung up on it’s own. So — to argue history is to speak a language that Baptists don’t understand. If you want to convince them of the errors of their ways you have to FIRST convince them that Christian Church history matters. Until you do that they’ll believe that it is YOU who is adding something to the Word of God, and they are extremely protective of the Word of God.

Sorry !
There are no errors in our Baptist ways, everything is done by the book, the Bible

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Sorry !
There are no errors in our Baptist ways, everything is done by the book, the Bible

Really?

• Where in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith for Christians?
• Where in the Bible does it say that Baptism is a symbolic gesture that the already saved believer makes to show his commitment to God?
• Where in the Bible does it say that every individual has the right to interpret every single passage of Scripture on their own in order to determine, by their own authority, what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine?
• Where in the Bible does it say that you are to have altar calls?
• Where in the Bible does it say that you are to meet at your church on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night?

 

[brosam]

But the “Baptism of John” isn’t the same as Christian Baptism, according to Acts 19.

If someone decides to join the Baptist church and they’ve been baptized in a Presbyterian or Methodist church, why are they required to be re-baptized?

Because infant baptism isn’t Biblical baptism.

 

[brosam]

*]Where in the Bible does it say that Scripture alone is the sole rule of faith for Christians?

It doesn’t. This is a common Roman Catholic straw man. We don’t say that scripture is the sole rule of faith, but that scripture is the final authority on matters of faith.

*]Where in the Bible does it say that you are to have altar calls?

The book of James tells us to come before the church for prayer, if we need prayer.

*]Where in the Bible does it say that you are to meet at your church on Sunday morning, Sunday night, and Wednesday night?

It doesn’t say when we’re to meet, but it does say that we’re to meet. You can meet anytime you want. Christian churches tend to meet on Sunday because the Bible tells us that that’s when the disciples met.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Because infant baptism isn’t Biblical baptism.

I didn’t say they were baptized as an infant, though. You pre-supposed that.

If an adult who, growing up, has not been to church anywhere, gets saved and is baptized in a Presbyterian church, and then later decides to join a Baptist church, they are forced to be re-baptized, and I’m not sure why. The Bible clearly says in Ephesians 4:5 “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.”

 

[brosam]

I didn’t say they were baptized as an infant, though. You pre-supposed that.

Having been a Methodist for the first twenty-five years of my life, I know for a fact that they do teach infant baptism.

If an adult who, growing up, has not been to church anywhere, gets saved and is baptized in a Presbyterian church, and then later decides to join a Baptist church, they are forced to be re-baptized, and I’m not sure why.

Actually, that’s not always true.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

It doesn’t. This is a common Roman Catholic straw man. We don’t say that scripture is the sole rule of faith, but that scripture is the final authority on matters of faith.

OK then… Where does Scripture say that it is the final authority on matters of faith?

The book of James tells us to come before the church for prayer, if we need prayer.

The book of James also tells us that faith without works is dead, but Baptists vehemently reject the idea that works play any part at all in salvation. (Although, if you don’t follow their man-made list of Do’s and Don’ts your salvation is seriously questioned…but that’s another thread.) Why is that?

It doesn’t say when we’re to meet, but it does say that we’re to meet. You can meet anytime you want. Christian churches tend to meet on Sunday because the Bible tells us that that’s when the disciples met.

So you admit that some of your practices (mid-week prayer meetings in particular) are not based on the authority of Scripture, but are in fact man-made traditions?

 

[brosam]

OK then… Where does Scripture say that it is the final authority on matters of faith?

2 Tim 3:16-17.

The book of James also tells us that faith without works is dead, but Baptists vehemently reject the idea that works play any part at all in salvation. (Although, if you don’t follow their man-made list of Do’s and Don’ts your salvation is seriously questioned…but that’s another thread.) Why is that?

Because we know the Bible well enough to understand that the passage isn’t saying that works are necessary for salvation, but that works are a byproduct of salvation.

So you admit that some of your practices (mid-week prayer meetings in particular) are not based on the authority of Scripture, but are in fact man-made traditions?

No. In fact, the Bible tells us to meet.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

Having been a Methodist for the first twenty-five years of my life, I know for a fact that they do teach infant baptism.

Sure, I’m not denying that. I was raised Methodist myself (but never baptized Methodist) and have several friends and family members who are still Methodist. I find it extremely interesting that the Lutherans, Presbyterians and Methodists retain infant baptism as a Biblical practice. With everything else that they tossed out as allegedly unbiblical, wouldn’t you think infant baptism would have been first to go during the “Reformation”? It’s only been in relatively recent years that infant baptism has been rejected by some denominations.

Actually, that’s not always true.

It depends on the mode of baptism, right?

 

[mercygate]

Because infant baptism isn’t Biblical baptism.

Say a person is baptized as an infant, and throughout his life experiences true growth in grace, faith, “wisdom and stature” and has a profound commitment to Christ but without a lightning-bolt born-again experience. IOW, that person has appropriated his baptism all along his life’s journey according to his increasing maturity. He BELIEVES. He PROFESSES. Would that person require baptism as a Baptist?

 

[brosam]

Say a person is baptized as an infant

That’s not baptism.

Would that person require baptism as a Baptist?

Yes, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Baptists. If he is to follow the Biblical model, then he needs to be baptised.

 

[mercygate]

That’s not baptism.

Only according to YOUR interpretation. Scripture plainly shows the possibility and likelihood of infant baptism, and there is another thread currently going to almost 1000 posts with arguments on either side. Since Scripture admits of the possibility of infant Baptism as well as Baptism for adult converts, that leaves us with whose opinion should prevail. I’ll go with the early Church, from which we see discussions of this practice, “which we received from the Apostles.” The Apostles baptized infants. I’ll buy that over the exclusion of infants, which became a teaching only in the 17th century, based on an an idiosyncratic reading of Scripture.

Yes, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Baptists. If he is to follow the Biblical model, then he needs to be baptised.

I see. Your view defines what constitutes the “biblical model.” I understand that. Disagree emphatically. But I understand it.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

2 Tim 3:16-17.

For context, let’s back up a few verses, shall we?

14But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

15And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice,

17That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
I don’t see anything that says “Scripture is the final authority” in this passage.

Because we know the Bible well enough to understand that the passage isn’t saying that works are necessary for salvation, but that works are a byproduct of salvation.

You have to ignore a whole lot of what Jesus says in the Gospels to come to that conclusion though. It was because of searching the Gospels for the Truth that I left the Baptist church (which I dearly loved) and am now Catholic. I did not leave the Baptist church because I was unhappy there - I left loudly protesting to the Lord that I was very happy where I was, thankyouverymuch, and did He really think this was necessary?

No. In fact, the Bible tells us to meet.

It also says that the apostles devoted themselves to the “breaking of bread” (Communion) every time they met. Does your church do that?

 

[brosam]

Only according to YOUR interpretation.

OK. Let me rephrase that: it’s not Biblical baptism.

Scripture plainly shows the possibility and likelihood of infant baptism

Please feel free to show me that verse.

I see. Your view defines what constitutes the “biblical model.” I understand that. Disagree emphatically. But I understand it.

No, the Biblical model defines what constitutes the Biblical model.

 

[brosam]

I don’t see anything that says “Scripture is the final authority” in this passage.

It says that God has given us scripture for the purpose of determining doctrine.

You have to ignore a whole lot of what Jesus says in the Gospels to come to that conclusion though.

OK. Give me just one example of Jesus saying that works save us.

It also says that the apostles devoted themselves to the “breaking of bread” (Communion) every time they met. Does your church do that?

No. The Bible tells us that we are to gather corporately. It doesn’t tell us that we are to have the Lord’s Supper at every gathering.