The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Does Mode Matter?

Greetings! I'm new to the forum arena but have enjoyed the discussions (yes, I was a lurker, but I'm out of the shadows, now.) I have a question that is currently a pressing matter in my life. First I should give a brief background. I am the son of a Quaker minister(Evangelical Friends) who married the granddaughter of a Southern Baptist minister. We found home in the reformed theology of the PCA but didn't join because we moved out of state. We've attended a Reformed Episcopal church (loved the tradition, liturgy, and the reverence and worship of God Almighty) where I was baptized as an adult.(Quakers don't baptize...as I'm sure you all know.) We have now been teaching in a parochial school of the Anglican Church for the past year but don't attend the very high-Anglican church because we don't agree with their views on the ordinances of the Lord's Supper and baptism. (The REC church we attended was fairly low-church.) We have been attending a Southern Baptist Church and I'm prayerfully considering the ministry as a calling.(I'm going to a preview conference at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in October.) We would like to join the Southern Baptist Church but from the SBC's statement of beliefs, I gather they won't accept my Episcopal baptism(pouring) as a valid baptism. While I accepted Christ as a child, I made my profession of faith as an adult with my baptism. If I am baptized again, I feel like I would be saying that my Episcopal baptism was a sham. What are y'alls opinions on the matter. Any comments or advice is greatly appreciated. Brandon

If you are looking at ministry in the SBC it would be strange if you didn't view infant baptisms as nullities. However, if you are simply looking at being a member of an SBC church while you pursue studies, and plan to pastor outwith that denomination the situation could be different.

As a paedobaptist in a country where most Reformed churches are baptist I have mused over what I would do if the only decent local church to join was a baptist church. I think I would be anabaptised, not because I think my first baptism was invalid, but so as not to put a stumbling block in the way of participation in church life. ISTM participation as a member of a local church is more important than making a stand on this issue when I am free in my own conscience to decide which baptism to consider as authentic. It can also be seen as a weaker brother/stronger brother issue. One is seeking not to offend weaker brethren in the church and voluntary circumscribing one's liberty for the peace and unity of the church.

Yours in Christ,

James.

Having come out of Armenian circles, all of my family members being either Evangelical Baptists or Evangelical Pentacostals, yet my self attending a reformed service, PCA, this question boggled me then and still boggles me now.

If you feel that your adult believer's baptism by pouring was valid, but your new church doesn't, you would be in a position somewhat similar to Timothy's when Paul circumcised him. (Acts 16:3) Although they themselves knew it was unnecessary, Paul and Timothy did it for the sake of others whom they were ministering to.

BOY... OUCH! Ummmmmm..... I'll take a sprinkling or a dunk anytime over a slice! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scared.gif" alt="" />

Dave.

Thank you all for your replies...Very helpful. I spoke with the pastor of the SBC church and he indeed said that they would not consider my baptism as a valid baptism for membership. If I were to be baptized again, it would be for membership, but not as a sign of my salvation. Paul and Timothy's example struck a chord with me. If I pastor a baptist church, I think I would want to have the same baptism experience as my congregation. So as not to cause any one to question my motives or sincerity. However, I would like to put kneelers in all baptist churches. :-) Thank you all again for the insightful comments. It gives me much to think about. Now, I just have to see if they'll let me join even though I enjoy a good beer! Sheesh!

Peace of Christ,
Brandon

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,

I would tend to agree with what Pilgrim has written, though I have mixed emotions regarding your question. If you wish to be a Southern Baptist minister, you really have little choice, it seems to me, but to undergo rebaptism. That is simply because baptism by immersion is indeed the doctrine of that church, and if you wish ordination therein, I don't see how you can say you are in accordance with the doctrines of the SBC.

Nevertheless, rebaptism has since the days of the Early Church Fathers tended to meet with the disapproval of the Church, and it seems to me that an absolute insistence on rebaptism by immersion unchurches (at least in a sense) all other communions that do not use immersion as their primary or only mode of baptism.

Theo

Pilgrim

For the most part I agree with what you said in your post. I do not believe that a Paedo-Baptist should be a pastor of a Credo-Baptist Church. But I don’t think a Paedo-Baptist should necessarily be refused membership unless they are baptized by immersion.

But I do have something that I disagree with you on.


I know of no knowledgeable Baptist that believes that someone who has not been baptized by immersion as not being a child of God.
Although I take issue with many of my own brothers and sisters in the Baptist Church over the issue of not allowing paedobaptists to become members of the local body.
That is not the reason why they don't allow membership.

The issue of baptism and membership is more "local" than "universal" when it comes to most Baptists. They do NOT believe that someone who has not been baptized by immersion is not a child of God. One thing I hear constantly is baptism is an outward sign of an inward reality. In other words, when someone is saved, they should show by an outward profession “baptism” that they are saved.
If it was true that Baptists didn't recognize paedobaptists as children of God, then they why would they allow paedobaptist theologians such a RC Sproul to preach in their Churches?

I am not willing to get involved in a big discussion on this issue, but I thought it needed to be said.

Tom

Spoken like a true Babdist! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> When one believes on the Lord Christ that person is not simply united to Christ (individualism), but ALSO and inseparably joined to the "Body of Christ"; the Church. This Church is universal. The requirements that Christ has set forth for its members do not include baptism by IMMERSION!! or any other man-made rule, e.g., abstinence from alcohol, dancing, card playing, TV, specific attire, etc., etc., ad nauseam. To deny any professing believer membership in CHRIST'S church is in essence the same as excommunicating someone from His church, i.e., it is a declaration that you do not qualify as a member. You simply cannot bifurcate membership from salvation, for membership requires a profession of faith in the Lord Christ and repentance from sin. To deny membership is to also bar an individual from the means of grace, e.g., the Lord's Table, prevention of one being joined officially with the people of God, prohibition from being able to exercise the gifts given by the Spirit for the benefit of the whole body, etc.

The Church is NOT a "social club" which sets its own rules and regulations. The local church is a representative of its Head; Jesus Christ and thus it is bound to His will in regard to all things pertaining to His bride. This is one of the things which separates Baptists from non-Baptists; a low view of the Church. Although there will never be total unity of the body of Christ on earth, it is my concerted opinion that there are myriad things which men have done to cause disunity among themselves and bring shame to Christ and ruin its testimony to the world. It has been my pleasure to see a few exceptions to this shameful situation on both sides; Baptist and non-Baptist who have not forced their own novel and sectarian ideas upon those who desired to join with them as members of the household of faith. Oh, that there were so many more of these types of churches today.

In His grace,

Pilgrim

It is not my intention to get into a dispute with you, I know full well what you believe concerning this issue. In fact my belief on this issue is somewhere between what my Baptist brothers and sisters and what you believe concerning the subject.
There are many other Baptists who take the stand I take. Just to name two; John Piper and the late John Bunyon (I think).

Tom

I think by being rebaptized you would be putting down a stumbling block by appearing to agree that your baptism was invalid; but if your baptism was according to biblical standards, why should you inhibit another from coming to the biblical understanding?


Is baptism itself a matter of Christian liberty?

And did he state why your baptism was invalid, if it was the mode that made it invalid then Brandon I would suggest that you don't go with the SBC. Since there is no clear instructions in the scriptures on how someone is to be baptized then their insistence on a certain mode is in actuality extra-scriptural and for that very reason should be a reason why you shouldn't join.

Second if this church is one that observes a "church covenant" which outlaws such things as drinking alcohol, card playing, movie going, and mixed swimming. Things which fall under adiaphora and shouldn't be used as a measure of qualification for membership it is but another reason to not join.

Dear Kyle,

One could graciously and openly make it plain that a rebaptism was principally for the sake of brethren in the church.

We live in an imperfect world where we cannot always find a bilbe centred reformed paedobaptist church in near us. At such times you simply have to choose between church membership and baptismal polity. I think the greater stumbling block is to give the impression that Christians can live fruitful, God-honouring lives outside of membership of the local church. Perhaps we would choose differently here, but clearly I think the biblical balance is as I have stated.

This perspective is also shared by the WCF which states that there is, ordinarily, no salvation apart from being a part of the visible church of Christ. (WCF XXV.1)

The WCF does not make the same strong statement about neglecting baptism. Although I would hold that the witholding of baptism from the infants of believers is a great sin, it does not prevent regeneration (WCF XXVIII.5) nor does the WCF contend that adult baptisms are invalid.

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.

Yours in Christ,

James.

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,