Quote
James said:
I was never contending for the fact of baptism as a matter of Christian liberty, but merely that we have more freedom over its timing than over church membership.
Brother James,

But this is not the issue, however, is it? The caveat isn't over "timing", but one of "mode", which in the case of the SBC states that ONLY immersion qualifies as legitimate baptism and de facto, all other baptisms, whether infant or adult are spurious. Thus, of necessity, unless one is immersed in water, according to the SBC, you are not and cannot be considered a member of the Church of the Lord Christ of which they are a representative. As I wrote in one of my other replies, you simply cannot bifurcate salvation from baptism nor salvation from the Church (universal). So, this issue comes down to whether or not one's salvation is recognized on the basis of "mode". I've been through this same scenario on at least two occasions and my choice was to reject the Baptist church's non-recognition/acceptance of my valid profession of faith and the record of my outward life in Christ for the very good reason that to acquiesce to their demands would mean that my salvation; union with Christ and His bride was not real. Therefore for the sake of the brethren and the purity of the Gospel I could say with Paul:


Galatians 2:3-5 (ASV) "But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."


In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]