# Transfer members - what baptism do you accept?



## Chris (Mar 27, 2007)

Hypothetically speaking, if someone from a campbellite church wanted to join your church, would you consider their baptism valid, or would you insist they be baptised in your church before joining? 

I lean to the latter, but would love to hear the PB opinion and reasoning on this.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 27, 2007)

Chris said:


> Hypothetically speaking, if someone from a campbellite church wanted to join your church, would you consider their baptism valid, or would you insist they be baptised in your church before joining?
> 
> I lean to the latter, but would love to hear the PB opinion and reasoning on this.



We have a lot of ex-International Church of Christ members at our church, and I believe our policy has been to accept the baptism if they believe their profession of faith was genuine.


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 27, 2007)

Define "campbellite church", please. Are you referring to former Church of Christ members or are there others.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 27, 2007)

jbergsing said:


> Define "campbellite church", please. Are you referring to former Church of Christ members or are there others.



Cambellites adhere to the errant doctrines of Thomas and Alexander Cambell founders of what is commonly known today as the Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ churches. There are a few denoms that hold to the Restorationist thinking of these two men and Barton Stone.


----------



## Chris (Mar 27, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Cambellites adhere to the errant doctrines of Thomas and Alexander Cambell founders of what is commonly known today as the Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ churches. There are a few denoms that hold to the Restorationist thinking of these two men and Barton Stone.



Yeah - that's them. 

Would you accept a baptism from them? 

Where do you draw the line?


----------



## jbergsing (Mar 28, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Cambellites adhere to the errant doctrines of Thomas and Alexander Cambell founders of what is commonly known today as the Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ churches. There are a few denoms that hold to the Restorationist thinking of these two men and Barton Stone.


Thanks. My in-laws are CoC so any bit of information to arm myself helps. I've heard my father-in-law state outright, "The CoC is the only true church." It took all I had not to reply with a comment about the CoC being cult-like.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 28, 2007)

I think the short answer is any person baptised with water in the name of The Trinity is to be accepted as baptised.


----------



## PresReformed (Mar 28, 2007)

WCF 28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto *.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 28, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> WCF 28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto *.



Thanks Greg, I should not have assumed that everyone would know that you have to be a minister to baptise someone.


----------



## Chris (Mar 28, 2007)

Any Baptist responses? 

I really appreciate the responses thus far - but would love to hear from Baptist, if any are out there.


----------



## PresReformed (Mar 28, 2007)

Kevin said:


> Thanks Greg, I should not have assumed that everyone would know that you have to be a minister to baptise someone.



You're welcome Kevin, but I was also stressing the importance that he would have to be a lawfully called minister of the Gospel, not self-ordained or a priest. Many Protestants accept a Roman Catholic baptism from a RC priest...there is no such office in the our Lord's Church.


----------



## raekwon (Mar 28, 2007)

Interesting. Knowing the confessional language, I now wonder how some Presbyterians would handle someone transferring in from a Baptist denomination in which the person administering baptism doesn't necessarily have to be an ordained minister or elder (for example, at the SBC church I used to be a member of, most baptisms were administered by pastors, but occasionally, it would be administered by a lay-person who was instrumental in the baptizand's conversion). Priesthood of all believers and all that rot. I personally don't believe that priesthood of all believers extends to ministerial functions or priviledges, but anyway . . .

Would/should such a baptism be considered invalid?


----------



## KMK (Mar 28, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Cambellites adhere to the errant doctrines of Thomas and Alexander Cambell founders of what is commonly known today as the Church of Christ or Disciples of Christ churches. There are a few denoms that hold to the Restorationist thinking of these two men and Barton Stone.



Disciples of Christ Church is an offshoot of Campbellism? I did not know that. Can anyone give me proof?


----------



## non dignus (Mar 28, 2007)

Aberrant Church/Roman Catholic baptism isn't great but I think re-baptism is worse. 

In hindsight of irregular cases, at the very least the baptiser should be trinitarian and baptised himself.


----------



## SRoper (Mar 28, 2007)

PresReformed said:


> WCF 28:2 The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, *by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto *.



Although many if not most American Presbyterians would disagree with me, I see the WCF as outlining what makes a baptism lawful, not what makes it a baptism. In other words, there is a such thing as an irregular baptism.


----------



## elnwood (Mar 28, 2007)

Why does a baptism need to be performed by a minister in order to be lawful?


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 28, 2007)

KMK said:


> Disciples of Christ Church is an offshoot of Campbellism? I did not know that. Can anyone give me proof?



Here's the Wiki on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ)



Bob Ross some years back wrote a book on the history and heresies of Cambellism as well. I have a copy of it at home it's not a very large book and it's fairly concise.


----------



## KMK (Mar 28, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Here's the Wiki on it.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Church_(Disciples_of_Christ)
> 
> ...



This is a quote from the Wiki on it:



> The People's Temple congregation led by Jim Jones was affiliated with the Disciples of Christ at the time of the mass suicide of its members on 18 November 1978 at its compound in Guyana. Jones was ordained by the Disciples of Christ. His fellowship and standing with the Disciples was in the process of being revoked due to mental defect at the time of the events in Guyana. Because of the congregational polity of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), regional leaders did not have the power to intervene in a decisive manner. However, since the tragedy, the systems of accountability in all regions of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) have been strengthened.



Would you rebaptize Jim Jones? I guess I would have to say because their doctrine is so loose, I might consider it.


----------



## Chris (Mar 28, 2007)

> I personally don't believe that priesthood of all believers extends to ministerial functions



But I do - and I don't care to use this thread to discuss it. 

I wanted to use this thread to discuss whether you would consider a campbellite baptism to be valid - because of what cult did it, and not because of your views of the ecclesiological qualifications of the particular member who performed it. 

Please, guys - I have no interest in discussing the WCF here. I have an interest in knowing how you'd view a potential new church member's baptism, based on the fact that it was performed by a cult/sect that is very hard to consider 'Christian'......


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 28, 2007)

Kevin said:


> I think the short answer is any person baptised with water in the name of The Trinity is to be accepted as baptised.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 28, 2007)

Most within my circles would require all paedobaptist to be rebaptize in order to be members of the church... 

That would not bar them from the Lord's Supper if they speak with the elders and the elders know them and their theology enough to allow Communion.

We also hold off Baptism from our children until they can make a _*credible*_ profession of faith which in our circles is adulthood sometime after 17 years old. We believe a child can make a profession of faith but not a credible one. This helps prevent making baptism a mockery by baptising our children 2, 3, 4, 5 times which happens in most baptist circles because a child will say he believes and wants to be baptized then a year later tells everyone I was not saved, now I am and want to be rebaptized and then again 2 years later... Children are tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.


Coram Deo,
Michael


Chris said:


> Any Baptist responses?
> 
> I really appreciate the responses thus far - but would love to hear from Baptist, if any are out there.


----------



## Coram Deo (Mar 28, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


>




Are you saying you allow for Catholic baptism to be valid?


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 28, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Are you saying you allow for Catholic baptism to be valid?




I don't claim to speak for others here but in my view yes.


----------



## non dignus (Mar 28, 2007)

Chris said:


> But I do - and I don't care to use this thread to discuss it.
> 
> I wanted to use this thread to discuss whether you would consider a campbellite baptism to be valid - because of what cult did it, and not because of your views of the ecclesiological qualifications of the particular member who performed it.
> 
> Please, guys - I have no interest in discussing the WCF here. I have an interest in knowing how you'd view a potential new church member's baptism, based on the fact that it was performed by a cult/sect that is very hard to consider 'Christian'......



Do the Campbellites believe the Apostles' Creed in a trinitarian sense?


----------



## non dignus (Mar 28, 2007)

MrMerlin777 said:


> I don't claim to speak for others here but in my view yes.


----------



## Kevin (Mar 28, 2007)

thunaer said:


> Are you saying you allow for Catholic baptism to be valid?



That is the traditional reformed & presbyterian view. In some part of the presbyterian church that is no longer popular, RC is not a 'True Church' that sort of thinking. However if the reformers had held the views of some modern presbyterians then they (the reformers that is) would have been anabaptists.

It is hard to start limiting baptisms without falling into Donatism. As someone said above some baptisms may be irregular, but they are still baptisms.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 28, 2007)

Anytime you get outside of linking baptism as real, true or valid outside of the name of God, His name written on you objectively and that it is objective from God regardless of the faith or lack thereof the one receiving it you run into trouble every single time and you fall into the trap of a 1000 Christless and vain false rebaptisms, which are not baptisms in any sense. 

When my wife was a Baptist in her part of the state it was very common practice for Baptist themselves to rebaptize those from other “types” of Baptist (e.g. particular to SB) or even from one church door step to the next (hence some of her 3 rebaptisms). That’s an extreme example but it indicates the logical conclusion of a false doctrine in the first place. She received baptism from church to church, when she “got saved” later in life as opposed to earlier – no wonder she was completely rattled at baptism and drew no strength from it.

Just yesterday a Baptist friend of mine told me that at his parents church, his old church, the pastor married an unbeliever with a believer under the condition that he become a believer…AND that she needed to be re-baptized though she explained to him that she’d been baptized (as an adult and by immersion).

When the sacraments become increasingly disconnected from their objective reality IN God’s name, BY God and in and of themselves “existing”, then increasingly connected to subjectivity and powers of man be it faith itself or authority – this is where it goes EVERY SINGLE TIME in its logical outfall. It’s inevitable and history for over 500+ years has proven it.

Luther captured it correctly when he said you could receive the Lord’s Supper from the steaming claw of the devil himself and it still was the Lord’s Supper.

It would be an interesting web to weave if we require not only of the recipient to have faith (ala Baptist), but the pastor held to the candle of examination who is doing it. Because I’ve seen my share of pastors leave the church completely after years. Then we could just sit around and endlessly try to read each others hearts and create lists to prove this or that person has faith so that baptism is real both on my part and the one giving it to me. I guess the solution there would be to stay in the water for life until death hoping that somewhere down the line before you died you really had faith and baptism could then superstitiously become real. That would be the safest approach.

L


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 28, 2007)

> Now let me explain my rebaptism. You may conclude that I have crucified the Son of God afresh as F. N. Lee has accused me of but I know you would be wrong because I know whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. I am convinced of Christ's Justifying work for me.
> 
> I believe I was baptized in a heretical way. I was told if I chose to be baptized God would forgive and cleanse me from all of my past sin. I also understood that I needed to attend the Lord's Supper for a weekly recleansing from sin. This is Heresy and not biblical Christianity. I partook in this heresy. Baptism and the Lord's supper became a what can I do to keep myself cleansed from sin and acceptable to God pursuit. My faith was in the action of these ordinances themselves. I miserably failed at this and sunk into deeper sin.
> 
> ...


Chris,
This was part of a discussion Larry and I had in another thread. I have been a member of other Baptist Churches that require for a rebaptism due to the heretical view the Church of Christ and North American Christian Confernce Churches have. If you wanna discuss this more with me just email me.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Mar 31, 2007)

Randy,

We’ve discussed this at length and all this does is prove the point. Baptism is thus tied subjectively to the “view” not its giving in the objective name of the Trinity and of God.

This will help. Prior to Luther’s famous tower experience Romans 1:17 was viewed as a legal doctrine (heresy). The entire Medieval view understood that “righteousness” even under “gospel” was to be achieved by change and works, hence the entire indulgence system. But upon Luther coming to light upon that passage as not God’s righteousness whereby He is intrinsically righteous but the righteousness He purely imputes to the believer, truster in Christ alone/nakedly, the entire passage opened up to Luther and the Reformation began recovering the Gospel. Rome’s heretical view of those Words did not negate the objective reality of those Words. Man can lie about the Gospel, attach things to it (like Galatians) heretically turning it into another gospel but it doesn’t change the Word of God. Man can do this by adding to a sentence (extra words) OR more insidiously sneak in a thought element that redefines a Word (e.g. like children in Acts 2). E.g. Man = sentient, living, rational, self contained being. That’s a rough set of thought elements that means man. So man is understood this way every where we read of him in sentences. That definition carries through and sets forth what we read about him. But someone could come along and add or delete a thought element and “call it” man entirely changing the sum of the elements whereby everything before hand read about and said about him changes everything. This is the GREATEST danger and trick of the devil in Scripture because it is very subtle.

Anyway, just because someone had a heretical understanding of baptism does not make objective baptism given in the name of God not real baptism at all. Not at all for it is rooted in His name and promise not ANY subjective thing of man: not who receives it, not who gives it, not even a misdefinition of it as long as it is given in God’s name. Else by your own definition EVERY reformed, PCA, Lutheran, Methodist, and etc… would have to deny completely “credo” baptism for it would be heretical by definition according to those groups. In fact according to your definition, not one I’m supporting, you would have to be considered an unbaptized member the PCA church in which you attend. But of course they don’t and your not unbaptized but baptized.

It really boils down to you not seeing the Gospel objectively IN baptism. I’m not talking about regeneration but the Gospel in water itself. You see baptism ultimately as Law not Gospel. That’s just being honest about it.

Ask yourself:

Does baptism save? And I don’t mean Rome’s view.

You will surely say, “no”.

Ergo, No Gospel in it. Because if you ask the same question this way you will at least see the difference for ideas do have consequences:

Does the Gospel save?

You would surely not say, “no” but, “yes”.

At the end of the day and all the big discussions and debates…that’s the fundamental difference. There you go.

God WAS faithful to His name in the first baptism IN SPITE of the churches heresy or your faith or unbelief. THAT’s the REAL testimony, HE DID His NAME with you ANYWAY. You were just like a baby, receiving in spite of your ability to receive even through the heresy of that false church. That’s real testimony of baptism.

Theologies of glory testimonies focus on the change in the individual’s life. Theology of the Cross testimonies focus on the work of Christ in history for us. Note I said history NOT even to the self. Baptism is objectively real not subjectively. That’s why we don’t nor should not panic about ‘did I get baptized right’ but glory in the name of God. I don’t have to go, anymore, hunting and pecking endlessly about baptism because it was HIS name in spite of me and the ones that put it on me.

Even the devil himself can baptize you and yet he hates Christ. No you might think. Then who orchestrated the crucifixion of Christ on the earthly level? Judas, Pharisees and the Romans ALL under the hand of Satan. And what was Christ’s Crucifixion? A circumcision (from life) and a baptism (Christ explicitly called it a baptism). Was it false because the Jews, Rome and the devil “did it”? No, Peter says plainly that all these were set forth by the predetermined purpose of God. What man means for evil God means for good. Now you can begin to see what it means that God hides Himself to reveal Himself.

Take care brother, you know I always love you even though we have some strong disagreements and truly know that of you toward me too. I don’t say that to smooth over our debates/discussions, I say it because I really mean it.

Blessings,

Larry


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 31, 2007)

Chris said:


> But I do - and I don't care to use this thread to discuss it.
> 
> I wanted to use this thread to discuss whether you would consider a campbellite baptism to be valid - because of what cult did it, and not because of your views of the ecclesiological qualifications of the particular member who performed it.
> 
> Please, guys - I have no interest in discussing the WCF here. I have an interest in knowing how you'd view a potential new church member's baptism, based on the fact that it was performed by a cult/sect that is very hard to consider 'Christian'......



Well, we know what the IMB thinks about it since CoC does not hold to the "security of the believer".


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 31, 2007)

Kevin said:


> That is the traditional reformed & presbyterian view. In some part of the presbyterian church that is no longer popular, RC is not a 'True Church' that sort of thinking. However if the reformers had held the views of some modern presbyterians then they (the reformers that is) would have been anabaptists.
> 
> It is hard to start limiting baptisms without falling into Donatism. As someone said above some baptisms may be irregular, but they are still baptisms.



 

Rejecting RC baptism unchurches the Reformers since If I recall correctly one and all had RC baptism and considered it valid baptism. Without this in view, someone can take the WCF language quoted earlier out of context and end up with a conclusion that the Westminster Assembly and the Reformation in general rejected.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 1, 2007)

Pilgrim said:


> Rejecting RC baptism unchurches the Reformers since If I recall correctly one and all had RC baptism and considered it valid baptism.



That depends, however, on _when_ the RC Church is viewed as becoming a synagogue of Satan rather than a Church of Christ. Many would say it was at the Council of Trent.


----------

