The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Does Mode Matter?

Ordinarily, by what rite does one initially become a member of the visible church? By baptism. To neglect baptism is to neglect membership in the church.

If you are denied membership by a church which calls your prior baptism invalid, although it was in fact biblically valid, then it is not you who are putting down a stumbling block, but rather the church which denies you membership. So I say, for the sake of the brethren, you ought to stand as a witness against their denial of membership to you.

Perhaps for my situation things are different, since no church would deny the validity of my baptism as I was immersed as an adult in the Triune Name. Thus the issue will perhaps never be as pressing for me as it would be for those among us who were baptized as infants or who were baptized by some mode other than immersion. Nevertheless, I think that by being rebaptized you would be in essence denying the validity of your prior baptism.

Dear Jeff,

Why do baptist churches refuse membership to those who have not been immersed? Is it because they do not regard them as Christians, as members of the universal church? Or is it because they require a particular practice of baptism to qualify for membership of them?

I would be surprised if any reformed baptist church (SBC or otherwise) would refuse to accept a paedobaptist with a credible profession of faith as a fellow Christian, even though they might refuse them church membership.

We might want to argue against their inconsistencies here. We might even want to argue they are effectively pronouncing that those who don't share their baptismal policy are non-Christians, but that is not what they think they are saying. For better or worse many Christians hold inconsistent positions without drawing the conclusions we might think they would.

It is interesting that Bethlehem Baptist Church has recently revised their position so that they do not require rebaptism for membership (thus putting them on a par with paedobaptist churches accepting baptist members). This has been discussed over at the Reformation 21 web site.

I recognise that you have faced this situation with regard to church membership and have come to different conclusions than myself. This is one of those areas where our consciences accept of different outcomes. I haven't yet faced the situation. If I do I'll let you know what happens!

Yours in Christ,

James.

Dear Kyle,

I agree about who is putting the "stumbling block" although, as you will realise from my previous post to you, and my reply to Jeff, I do not think that this issue would prevent me from undergoing rebaptism to join a baptist church.

I think it is more important to take a stand against Christians failing to join local churches. I see this as a greater problem and stumbling block to effective Christian growth and service in our day and age. In the scenario we have discussed, our fallen world forces us to choose between these two ways of witnessing against error.

Yours in Christ,

James.

I think I'm pretty safe.....I was baptised as an infant (sprinkled), and immersed as an adult. Seriously, though, I don't think mode should be a huge issue. As long as one is baptised, that should suffice. The Lord actually actually speaks of sprinkling water in Ezek 36:25. I don't doubt that immersion was practiced as well. Argueing over mode I think misses the point. As long as baptismal regeneration isn't taught, I see no problem with baptism by sprinkling, pouring, or immersing.

The reason for being baptised twice for me was because my old church (dispensational) believed infant baptism was wrong, as well as sprinkling. I was ignorant of the subject so I went with it and got re-baptised. I no longer hold this view. I believe my first baptism was valid, and rebaptism was not necessary.

And one of those ways does not involve you giving in to someone else's error. You cannot be held responsible when membership is unjustly denied to you, but you can be held responsible when you obtain membership through the effective denial of your prior baptism, for you would be affirming them in their error.

Everyone has given me so much to think and pray about. ReformedStudent makes a valid point...I have read back over the Baptism liturgy in the BCP and regeneration is most definitely tied to the sacrament(ordinance) of baptism.


Said after the baptism:

This liturgy, in essence, denies my Christian life prior to my Baptism. To negate the past 21 years of my Christian life(even though I was a member of the church) carries more weight than a Baptist church not accepting the mode of my baptism but accepting my profession and outgrowth of faith.

I should clarify that I am credo-baptistic, although sympathetic to paedo-baptistic Pressies. As Mark Dever has expressed, if I can't find a theologically grounded Baptist church, I would dive into the nearest PCA church and be thankful that God's word is being proclaimed.

I don't think mode really matters and I hold that my baptism was valid as obedience to Christ's command, but I disagree with the liturgy that was spoken over my baptism and the assumption that I had no regenerative faith until my head was wet. Therefore, I will submit to baptism by immersion as a profession of my faith and as entrance into the body of Christ via the SBC.

Thank you all again for all of your comments and opinions. You have all been more helpful than you know.

Grace and peace to you all,
Brandon

If you find an SBC church that allows for that, I wanna know where it is so I can join!

When you say, "my baptism was valid as obedience to Christ's command", are you referring to your obediance or the minister's obedience? Is the validity of your baptism reduced because the minister's accompanying liturgy contained doctrinal error?

Is the Nicene Creed is wrong when it says, "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin"? Are additional baptisms necessary to correct the baptismal deficiencies of visible churches? If so, how does your view differ from that of the Romanists and Orthodox who consider Protestant baptisms to be inferior and require a baptismal supplement prior to membership?

Brandon,

It appears that you've got your mind made up on this issue so I'm not sure any of the replies you've received in this thread have altered that one bit. I'd like to add just one simple final thought. The mode is not really the issue is it? The issue is summed up in your bio stating that you are “a liturgically reformed catholic trapped in a Baptist's Body”. I’m not sure what that is but the bottom line is you want to be a Baptist.

You've been told that by being re-baptized you will conform to a church’s tradition not a Scriptural mandate. The Baptists have raised this issue above the Word of God and have set themselves apart from the rest of Christ’s Church due to their position on this issue. If you want to be a minister in that tradition then you have no choice but to conform to the Baptist mode of immersion. Since it appears you’ve decided to do this I’d just like to recommend that you look for a Reformed Baptist church because it embraces a Reformed perspective while holding to their sacred cow credobaptism by immersion.

Blessings!
Wes

Wes, thank you for your comments. My bio line was just a Cliff's Notes way to describe the journey I've been on and where I'm currently resting...now that I look at it, it smacks of, albeit a much shorter version than, Brian McLaren's title for his Emerging Church manifesto... and for that I am saddened. I shall remove it immediately from all future posts. FYI, there is a Reformed movement within the SBC, known as the Founder's movement, that's trying to return to the Baptist's Calvinistic roots in the doctrines of grace and election. I would hope to align myself with those Baptists. SBC churches are fairly autonomous and I would try to model my ministry focus after Capital Hill Baptist(Mark Dever) or Parkside Christian Church(Alistair Begg)...with a little Tim Keller thrown in!

Thank you again and God Bless,
Brandon

Yep got caught in that trap myself. I was attending a dispensational church run by a former Southern Baptist pastor and he basically layed the smack down regarding my previous baptism in the Lutheran church. So with nothing to counter his arguments I ended up getting dipped.

James I think you may have hit it on the head. I have seen multiple Baptists sites regarding Local/universal church and a vast majority of them do argue against the entire idea of the universal church. This would explain the entire rebaptism requirement.

However, please keep in mind that many Baptist churches will not accept baptisms, even if they are done by immersion, from a church that isn't a baptist. My own niece was denied access to the elements during communion even though she had been baptized by immersion as a confessing adult. The reason given was that the church that had done the baptism was a "Bible" church not a "baptist" church.

I applaud your decision here. If I were going to join a Baptist church that's the group I would align myself with as well.


Blessings!
Wes