Immersionists unchurch all

__________________
Chris
Member at Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

Beware of a religion without holdfasts. But if I get a grip upon a doctrine they call me a bigot. Let them do so. Bigotry is a hateful thing, and yet that which is now abused as bigotry is a great virtue, and greatly needed in these frivolous times. I have been inclined lately to start a new denomination, and call it "the Church of the Bigoted." Spurgeon

"The just mind replies to such a dogma, not only with a firm negative, but with the righteous indignation of an incredulus odi."

While I agree with this entirely: Good luck not getting beat to death in today's neo-victorian, politically correct, ecuminical society, that is to say not getting persecuted verbally for attempting this, especially the later part.

Sometimes inter-denominational ecumincalism is nothing more than caving in on the truth, period, (and I'm not speaking about the laity who are taught) and no amount of lipstick can turn that pig into a beautiful woman. Because, while the 'high end' theologians who live and breath this stuff on a daily basis can distinguish the subtle differences, such 'ecumenical' peace treatise appear to the laity as nothing more than a form of "the difference really doesn't matter when all is said and done."

To this I give my hats off to the Lutherans for the most part who historically stand stronger and cave in less.

__________________
Larry Hughes
Geologist
Tates Creek PCA
Lexington, KY
PCA

Galatians 4:29, "But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now also."

Excellent post, Larry, although I'm not sure if I quite get the "neo-Victorian" reference. I am inclined to agree with your observations on inter-denominational dialogue, that those who aren't as attuned to nuances tend to think this is a matter of indifference, and we in the west certainly live in a doctrinally indifferent age. The other extreme is blind prejudice and unthinking adherence to tradition.

I have little doubt that (and this is another symptom of our doctrinally indifferent age) most if not all of the Baptists on this board and elsewhere today will say "we don't believe in that Trail of Blood and Baptist Brider nonsense" but as Dabney said, it is basically the logical conclusion of the Baptist position since it has been almost universally recognized that baptism marks the entrance into the visible church. If immersion is the only baptism, then the inescapable conclusion is that paedobaptist churches are no churches at all. Bunyan took the different view that baptism was not necessary to enter the visible church, that a profession of faith was sufficient. Although it appears to be magnanimous, I submit that the Bunyan position has no scriptural warrant.

I am going to make some angry with this comment, but I often think some people make baptism an idol. I've seen more focus on it than on Christ many, many times. And no, I am not just talking about here on the PB.

__________________
Adam Leavelle
Westminster OPC
Roaring Spring Pa.

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle
"Speak wisdom to a fool and he'll think you have no sense at all"

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

You mean similar to how you have recently been representing theonomists and Presbyterians in general in the best light?


If you mean here what I think you do, then you are not an immersionist although no doubt that mode is your preference. One can be an antipaedobaptist and not be an immersionist.

The doctrine that the ONLY valid baptism is immersion is basically the sine qua non of Baptist thought and to my knowledge is reflected in every Baptist confession ever written since the 1644 London Baptist Confession if not prior to that. But there seems to be a willingness among some in Baptist churches today to allow some leeway here, perhaps especially among those who have embraced the doctrines of grace.

Do you believe someone who was baptized by pouring or sprinkling and believes that to be a valid baptism can join a Baptist church without being immersed? Would it matter to you whether the baptism was when they were an infant or not? Or would you only be willing to accept those who are baptized after a profession of faith?

Who do you mean by we? I can only assume that it is the Baptists with whom you are familiar. However, the idea that Presbyterians do not belong to real churches has a long and distinguished pedigree in Baptist thought, (and not just Landmark) although they of course recognized that there were true Christians in paedobaptist churches. I doubt that, however charitable they may be, that most Baptists (meaning those holding to Baptist principles, not merely someone who happens to belong to a Baptist church) would say that Presbyterians have real baptisms. (I am also curious to know whether Bro. Moore would say this.) Do you really mean to say that someone baptized as an infant (which would include most who are raised in the Presbyterian church) has a real baptism?

As far as I know, you are not a Southern Baptist. But if you will recall, the IMB controversy last year was in part over whether immersions performed by non baptists (such as Presbyterians) were to be considered valid for the purposes of commissioning someone as an IMB missionary. (The IMB had ruled that missionaries had to be immersed in a baptistic church that held to eternal security.) I seriously doubt that those (including some associated with Founders) who were crying Landmarkism would argue that sprinklings are valid albeit irregular. But this seems to be what you are saying here.

You ALL? Me thinks a little more caution is in order in imputing the statements of some to every non-baptist on this board.

You are probably right. Anything can be an idol. Calvin said that the mind is an idol factory. This can include the doctrines of grace as well. How many people have we seen who can find nothing else to talk about?

I just wonder how much more good we could ALL do if the mode and methods of baptism weren't fought over as if it were the only issue Christ will judge us on. Please don't think I am picking on this thread, this has been going on for so, so, so, SOOOOO long and I have grown pretty tired of it. We have some very strong , wise, and dedicated Christians on this board who I think could find so much more to discuss that would be edifying and uplifting to all who post here.

Bottom line:

Many here disagree on the methods and mode of baptism, lets move on.

Sorry to sound so grumpy.

I respect how you feel, Adam. There are times when debates turn me off as well. But I refer you to the heading for the Baptism forum, which I can see at the top of the page as I type this:

You may also want to refer to the Forum Guidelines for Covenant Theology

I post things like my blog post and in this thread today in the naive hope that someone may be actually be convinced by my feeble efforts. I agree with you that this is not a salvation issue, but are we to take the position that it doesn't matter at all?

I understand that such debates are often unfruitful and unfortunately sometimes unedifying. But as the guidelines state, this forum is for those who wish to debate and discuss these issues, and others are asked to refrain from posting in this forum due to the often divisive nature of these debates.

Ok, good points and I wasn't trying to "growl" you or say you were breaking any rules. I am literally just tired of this debate. When you click "todays posts" I tend not to pay attention to what forum they are in. I guess I just have to avoid this one huh?

...Sigh

Thanks!

Thanks Chris,

By “neovictorian” I was referencing the fact that the Victorian age was kind of the precursor to “politically correct” speech we see today rather than not mincing words for the sake of “kind society”. It is why men like Luther and Calvin sound harsh to us, when in fact they are dealing with life and death issues and do not have time for such foolishness.

Adam,

The debate is not a small one. It is wrong if it is taken as a “my law on baptism is better than your law on baptism”. If that is how it is being debated, then I agree with you and it is not only tiresome but wrong.

However, if the debate is seeing baptism as Gospel versus another law, then the debate is not only valid but demanded for the sake of the Gospel. Because at the end of the day what is at danger here is the Cross of Christ and the faith, hope, and peace of the conscience of God’s people.

Think of it this way: If a thing was given to us by God to strengthen our faith in the Gospel due to our constant proclivity toward weakness in really believing the naked Gospel for us and only parts of it are important to hold to versus not other aspects of it, and then later on a group or person takes the “other aspects” of it and make it a “new law”, a must do or its not real; what do you think that does to the soliloquy of the conscience of the believer for which this grace was given in the first place? And secondly, who began setting up this “new law” in the first place?

In baptism some things are necessary not so much unto a “law” but to maintain the Gospel in it. For example the name of God, the Trinity. If you remove that then what do you have? Nothing. However, to suddenly insert mode as the only real valid mode, where no such assertion is ever made, is to make it a new law and obscures the Gospel. The fact that it obscures the Gospel in baptism ought be enough to war against it and stand firm in the one faith, one Lord, one Spirit, one body and one baptism to all. Note how something that is otherwise indifferent, mode, is made not indifferent by requiring one mode above other modes. A thing indifferent to baptism is then made a thing of primacy and simultaneously a thing prime to baptism, the name of God, is slowly hidden as prime. This is the subtle trickery of the devil, to hide the real issue by keeping a “non-issue” at the front. As long as there exists this insistence of one mode, then there exists a deception that hides the Cross by its very existence. To cave in to the one mode would be to validate it as a prime thing and that cannot be done.

So, again if the debate is “my law is better than yours” then it is wrong. But if it is “your hiding the Gospel and here is how”, then it is right to debate and defend. We are called to defend the Gospel.

Trever,

Pause just one second and look at your entire language and consider the conscience of the believer, then maybe, per chance, you will recognize the great harm an “immersionist only” position has on the believer by making it an ‘implied’ law rather than the giving of the Gospel; and then understand what the article was getting at, to wit; to cause doubt upon a persons baptism, God’s name and particularly to the laity this causes several harms. Your “soft” terms are not so soft as they intend to be.

Things are black and white, not the fuzzy language you offer.

“As a Baptist I recognize that things CAN be done in an IRREGULAR (a not so disguised way of saying “wrong”) way and still be valid. If one was baptized IMPROPERLY (the disguise begins to come off a bit here), that baptism still MAY (implied may not because it either IS or IS NOT, no middle ground) count as a valid baptism – THOUGH IT WAS NOT BY immersion (once again the disguising language takes of its mask)”

The sum total of your communication regardless of the “couched” terms mingled throughout is this; immersion is the only real true and valid baptism and if you really want to be sure, for what blood bought Christian does not, you better get immersed. Ergo if “I’m a real Christian this I will do.” In short “doubt the Gospel”. This is the devil’s attack from day one of the Reformation regarding baptism and the sacraments, to cause them to be nothing to the conscience of the believer in his time of need under suffering.

Let me re-write it in a way that may show what you are saying to a person baptized in another mode and perhaps you will see what you are communicating to them and see why it is anti-gospel and anti-cross at the end of the day:

“If one “believes” improperly, that “belief” still may (implied may not) count as a valid belief - though it was not “true belief”. The sum of which is “I don’t know and cannot be assured. The devil’s real intent.

Perhaps that helps.

Because baptism is viewed as a promise, inheritance and gift FROM God and NOT just an empty badge whereby it may be blasphemously repeated mocking God. To view baptism as GOD’s WORK in spite of the receiver of it versus baptism as man’s work that can be repeated is really two different religions at the end of the day on the issue of the sacraments and not a thing of indifference. Baptism, as with all sacraments, is given for faith not to be the devil’s instrument against faith. Baptism is the real giving of the name (authority) of God thus we baptize in the name of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit – not in the name (authority) of the receiver, not in the name (authority) of faith, and certainly not in the name (authority) of a particular mode. To give God’s name is no trifling matter. Ironically those who rebaptize violate the third commandment and end up using the name of God in vain. How so? By explicitly “rebaptizing” in an open ceremony and worship to all eyes beholding, this says, that the prior true and real baptism and giving of God’s name in that was nothing at all, in fact worthless, pointless and useless and what really counts is a man’s profession of faith, not the name of God. That’s the real witness of “rebaptism”.

However, foisting a false singular mode (the singularity is false not the specific mode) as “the only mode” or “proper mode” in turn causes to the conscience of the already truly baptized trusting in Christ alone and the baptism He gave them to (i.e. the baptized covenant children and those by other modes, if they encounter Baptist and baptistic types) believer to doubt God’s grace toward them. That is to say doubt the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the devil’s goal realized. And then to go seeking by sight something within them that assures God’s grace toward them rather than the cross to which their real and true baptism was based upon and not their faith weak, strong or non-existent before hand. When the Christian in the best position is the one not seeking anything in himself and sees himself worse a sinner day by day. Why? Because he is fixing all the more under this suffering unto the Cross of Christ, God graciously not letting him see himself improving and thereby all the more clinging strongly to the Cross of Christ all the more. In short blessed is the man who does not see himself better but more the sinner and clinging more unto the Cross, or “blessed are the poor in spirit, hungering and thirsting after righteousness”.

The Baptist position forces, through that view of baptism, one to look at faith to have assurance or faith rather than the object of saving faith the Cross of Christ to which baptism must point and rest. And thus looking for assurance is not saving faith but having faith in faith, that is a baptism that points to faith is manifestly saying, trust in faith to which “baptism” points for assurance. This is why rebaptisms occur be it in regards to mode or when it was given.

That’s the issue at hand, the Gospel to a person, and not a thing of indifference.

Blessings in Christ’s grace to you,

Ldh

Dabney writes:

Question: Can a person be born again without being a member of the visible church?

__________________
Bill Brown
Elder
Grace Baptist Church
Anne Arundel County, Maryland

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Visit my BLOG Theology for the Rest of Us

Better yet, can a person who is not a child of Abraham by faith truly be a true member of Christ's body?


Now concerning Baptism and circumcision.... and the true Covenant children of Abrahams faith.

God wrote through Paul, "For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation"l 6:15 ). Nor does He say this because baptism is the replacement for circumcision. Paul never makes this argument in Galatians (or anywhere else!) and at the meeting at Jerusalem to discuss circumcision, bapism is not so much as mentioned. Why didn't the Apostles simply say, "The Gentiles Christians don't need to be circumcised because they've already been baptized"? Because baptism and circumcision are two very different things. Circumcision was for the physical descendants of Abraham; baptism is for the spiritual descendants- those who are of faith (Gal 3:7 ). Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Ishmael was not a Covenant child in the since of being in Christ. Ishmael was very firmly out of His covenant. Ishmael was rejected. 'And Abraham said to God, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before You!" Then God said: "No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him. "' Gen 17:18-19 (NKJV)

Baptism is meant for those of faith who are regenerate. True members in the body of Christ are alive and not dead in faith. Babes in Christ should be baptized. Babes who have a confessing faith that is.

Concerning the immersion issue.... The Greek word is actually used in varying ways in the Septuagint. I am more inclined to think immersion is the biblical picture of being burried.

You may think I am ecumenical in the fact that I don't limit myself to accept only Baptist's as my brothers and that I do not consider all others cut off. But so be it. My brothers are my brothers and we do have the same father who loves us. He paid an aweful high price for us to love one another.

Randy

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Some of what you say may happen here Larry. But I believe you are setting up a straw man in most cases. My hope is not in my faith even though it is a reality in my justification as it is in everyones. Without having faith in Christ and His work we have nothing. So it really isn't faith in faith. It is an understanding that we are justified because of our faith in the Person and Work of Christ. If you want to propose a faith in faith scheme go the Word Faith movement. My baptism points me to the facts that I by faith am hid in Christ's burial, my sins are burried with Him, and I am risen with him in newness of His ressurection.

I asked this question for a reason. The answer is either:

1. Yes. It is possible to be born again an not be part of the visible church.


2. No. In order to be a part of the visible church you must be baptized in addition to being born again.

If the correct answer is #2, then it is possible to have believers in Jesus Christ who are not part of the church. They came to faith in Christ but were never scripturally baptized. The result? No church for them. Sounds fishy to me. I am not downplaying baptism. As a Baptist I hold to the position that all believers should be baptized quickly (almost hastily). But is it the baptism that makes them part of the church, or was it believing with faith? And if the answer is the former, does only an "approved" baptismal method bring you into the church?

Some of you are not going to like my answer but I would have to say yes. I became a Christian by reading the scriptures in a Navy barracks. I know I believed upon Christ and His work for me. I am sure He justified me and forgave me of my sin because I called upon Him. But God in His providence joined me to a group of believers within a few weeks. I had almost no Christian influence in my life up to that point.

I'm with you brother. The whole thing is getting silly now imo.

__________________
1689 Baptist Confession

Psa 55:16 As for me, I will call upon God; and the LORD shall save me.
Psa 55:17 Evening, and morning, and at noon, will I pray, and cry aloud: and he shall hear my voice.
James Farley, Wilderness Road Baptist Assembly.
Husband of Melissa and father of Ann.
www.wildernessroadbaptist.org

It seems to me that you may be conflating the invisible and visible church, equating being born again with being a member of the visible church. There are members of the visible church that aren't members of the invisible (true) church and vice versa.

The questions you ask are not either/or. Yes it is possible to be born again and not a member of the visible church. But Baptism has almost universally been recognized as the initiatory sign into the visible church. To join a church of practically any denomination, you have to be baptized, whether there or having been validly baptized previously. Again, I quote Dabney:

I recognize only one church: the church. It consists of all born again believers. Now, as to visible and invisible.... I suppose one can say that baptism brings a believer into membership (fellowship) with a local body of believers. If that local body is termed the "visible" church, then I can understand the term. I'm not sure I understand the premise that underscores what Dabney wrote, but I would concur that unless a person is scripturally baptized they cannot become a member of most Baptist congregations. I am leaning more towards Piper's position though. I would probably not demand that a previously paedo baptized individual go through the waters of baptism again. But if a person has never been baptized, I would require them to be immersed.