The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Does Mode Matter?

I've held off on getting involved in this discussion, but after reading the replies you received I thought I simply must jump in, albeit late, and offer an opposing opinion. Those who have been here for a little while know all too well where I stand on this "mode" issue. But since you are new to the Board and aren't familiar with my view(s), I'll introduce you to them.

I am a thorough-going paedobaptist (consistently Reformed), who stands somewhere in the middle between the edges of Paedobaptists and Credobaptists; just so you know. Now, you profess to be "Reformed" and from your denominational ties, it would also seem you embrace Paedobaptism. But it appears you are willing to throw your views on baptism out the window and embrace Credobaptism, since you are wanting to not only join a Baptist congregation, but pastor in the SBC denomination. IF that is true, then there is no need for me or anyone else to reply to your question(s). If, however, you intend to keep your paedobaptist view and seek a pastorate in the SBC, then there is a serious problem here.

First, in regard to membership. You or the pastor you spoke to or both, say that your re-baptism wouldn't "be as a sign of your salvation". How does one in good conscience skirt that biblical truth? Secondly, how can one bifurcate "salvation" from church "membership", when the biblical requirement for membership in the Church of Jesus Christ is a profession of faith (assumed salvation)? Third, one is to make a profession of faith PRIOR TO being received into membership. Thus if you have made a valid profession of faith and the prospective church has acknowledged that profession as being valid, then by not receiving you into membership should you reject the requirement to be immersed, having already been baptized in water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit by a legitimate and recognized officer of a church, they are de facto denying that your profession is valid; you are not recognized as being united to Christ by grace through faith. For the Church of the Lord Christ, which HE established is ONE:

Ephesians 4:4-6 (ASV) [There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all.

And there is no commandment of God to be found in His infallible Word which requires that anyone submit to IMMERSION to become a member of His Church, the body of Christ. All we read in the Scriptures is that make a valid profession of faith which can also be seen in one's daily life outwardly and submit to baptism in water in the name of the Triune God.

Thus, to deny someone membership in Christ's church who has given a credible profession of faith, whose life gives testimony to the verity of that profession and who is willing or has submitted to water baptism over MODE is to deny that profession of having been united to the Head of the Church by grace through faith. In short, most Baptists have inextricably joined "immersion" to "salvation" and thus without immersion, you are not recognized as a child of the Lord Christ, for you are not allowed membership in His body and thus the other means of grace, e.g., the Lord's Supper, to which the Lord Christ Himself invites you, no commands you, to come.

Okay.. now this issue of Timothy submitting to circumcision which some have mentioned as being your "way out" of this conundrum. However, why is it that no one also mentioned Acts 15:1ff (cf. Gal 2:2-5) where it was demanded by some of the Jews that Gentiles [brethren] be circumcised, to which the Council and Paul absolutely refused to allow. Yet, in Acts 16, a chapter later, Paul with the newly declared position of the Council had Timothy, "the son of a Jewess that believed; but his father was a Greek", circumcised "because of the Jews that were in those parts: for they all knew that his father was a Greek." The circumcision of Timothy was NOT in regard to his membership in the Church, nor in any way an indication of his spiritual state; salvation, but rather it was for the purpose of ministry among unbelieving Jews to whom Paul and Timothy were going to preach the Gospel. Thus, I think using this event to justify submitting to a "special" mode of baptism is not applicable; apples vs. oranges. Methinks that Gal 2:2-5 and Peter's hypocrisy of which evoked Paul's condemnation (Gal 2:11ff) is more applicable for it was something that was "in house", i.e., what one should do among recognized brethren/believers in the Church.

Lastly... there is this matter of you pursuing a pastorate among the SBC brethren. How is this going to be possible, IF you are forthright in declaring that you hold to paedobaptism to those who would examine you? And, how could you in good conscience not teach that believers are to bring forth their children to be baptized and thus have them set apart from the world as being part of the covenant community to whom God has given the means of grace? Again, if you are actually leaving behind your paedobaptism and embracing credobaptism, then there really is no issue here whatsoever and the immersion etc., etc... is simply your official and public indoctrination into the credobaptist camp.

May the Lord guide you into the truth and strengthen you so that you may remain faithful to those things which you profess before men and God.

In His grace,