# It is Prerequisite that you must be re-baptized!



## Dao (Sep 7, 2009)

During a conversation with my brother-in-law and sister, they quickly said,"You're ~NOT~ saved!!!!, You gotta be baptized again and do it with commitment!". Somehow they misunderstand me when I said we had to get baptized (immersion and become a member) to get married. I was speechless as usual. The timing was all wrong but they did say, "RE- BAPTIZED!!" with strong confidence and sureness. Southern (general) Baptist are the most confused people to talk to. We can look at the SBC's only creedal statement: The Baptist Faith and Message, Chapter 7, "Baptism and the Lord's Supper" (click HERE) The Baptist Faith & Message 
"states that baptism... is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper". 
So they do NOT explicitly deny you can't be saved without immersion baptism. Strange how they reject any "religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches" (click HERE). The Baptist Faith & Message So the The Baptist Faith and Message isn't actually a creedal statement. It's merely a suggestion! So all doctrine in the SBC is up for grabs. Every member of the SBC doing "whatever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:8). Regarding salvation, the BFM requires, "personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord". It also lists "regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification". ( Click HERE. ) The Baptist Faith & Message Immersion Baptism is NOT mentioned !
I brought up this topic because my Southern Baptist sister may not be aware that she is saying that our parents, grandparents and great grandparents, who were Presbyterians and possibly, more likely, sprinkled during baptism. My question to them is, "Are you guys saying that they're not saved because they weren't immersed but sprinkled?". 
Therefore -in practice- they don't really believe in anything. Or, put another way, what individual congregations, ministers, and members believe is up for grabs. They can believe any thing they'd like. Although, the SBC have a confession (the BFM), they explicitly deny their authority to impose it. An individual SBC member could say you have to worship Buddha to be saved ! The SBC has no mandatory doctrine (i.e., dogma). Individual SBC'ers can practice voodoo if they want. My question is: Do the SB believe that immersion is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper? 
Prerequisite means: something that is ~necessary~ to an end or to the carrying out of a function or: required beforehand. Or, something that must be gained in order to gain something else required as a prior condition of something else.


----------



## Herald (Sep 7, 2009)

> My question is: Do the SB believe that immersion is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper?


When you ask the question, "Do the SB believe" you're using a false premise. SB churches may belong to a common convention, but they are autonomous churches. That said, most Baptist churches, confessional or otherwise, usually approach baptism the same way. Baptism is required for church membership. A perspective member normally can join based on believers baptism, transfer of membership, or statement of faith. The latter two presuppose baptism has been scripturally administered.

Practice regarding the Lord's Supper can deviate from church to church. Some churches fence the table and only allow members to partake. Others permit those who have been baptized, but not members, to partake. Many do not fence the table at all and anybody can partake.


----------



## Cary Loughman (Sep 7, 2009)

Dao said:


> During a conversation with my brother-in-law and sister, they quickly said,"You're ~NOT~ saved!!!!, You gotta be baptized again and do it with commitment!". Somehow they misunderstand me when I said we had to get baptized (immersion and become a member) to get married. I was speechless as usual. The timing was all wrong but they did say, "RE- BAPTIZED!!" with strong confidence and sureness. Southern (general) Baptist are the most confused people to talk to. We can look at the SBC's only creedal statement: The Baptist Faith and Message, Chapter 7, "Baptism and the Lord's Supper" (click HERE) The Baptist Faith & Message
> "states that baptism... is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper".
> So they do NOT explicitly deny you can't be saved without immersion baptism. Strange how they reject any "religious authority to impose a confession of faith upon a church or body of churches" (click HERE). The Baptist Faith & Message So the The Baptist Faith and Message isn't actually a creedal statement. It's merely a suggestion! So all doctrine in the SBC is up for grabs. Every member of the SBC doing "whatever is right in his own eyes" (Deuteronomy 12:8). Regarding salvation, the BFM requires, "personal faith in Jesus Christ as Lord". It also lists "regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification". ( Click HERE. ) The Baptist Faith & Message Immersion Baptism is NOT mentioned !
> I brought up this topic because my Southern Baptist sister may not be aware that she is saying that our parents, grandparents and great grandparents, who were Presbyterians and possibly, more likely, sprinkled during baptism. My question to them is, "Are you guys saying that they're not saved because they weren't immersed but sprinkled?".
> ...



Southern Baptists expel Texas church as too lenient to gays - Obama inauguration form | Tri-City Herald : Mid-Columbia news

I immediately recalled this story as evidence that there is the ability to impose the BFM on SBC churches and expel them from the Convention. Other issues that have come up and resulted in separation is women pastors. 

I think this is helpful in explaining the SBC autonomy position:



> Autonomy
> We affirm the autonomy of the local church. Each church is free to determine its own membership and to set its own course under the headship of Jesus. It may enter into alliance with other churches as it chooses, so long as those other churches are willing.
> 
> The same is true for other Baptist bodies – local associations; state conventions; national conventions. They, too, may determine their membership and set their own course.
> ...


SBC Position Statements - Autonomy

So, I think it is a bit overboard to say that an SBC church could teach voodoo or worship buddha and still be included in the SBC. They could still be a "church," but would be expelled from the SBC, whether it be a local association, state or national convention handling the expulsion.


----------



## Edward (Sep 7, 2009)

Your signature says that you are PCA, and that suggests that you adhere to the WCF. It is a violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith to be re-baptized. Are you in the process of renouncing your PCA heritage? Do you subscribe to the BCF? And why would you have to be immersed to get married?


----------



## dudley (Sep 7, 2009)

*"What is true baptism?"*

I read your post on baptism. I am an ex Roman Catholic and now a Presbyterian Reformed Protestant. I renounced the rc faith and her pope and see her as an apostate churchy with a corrupted Gospel. 

"What is true baptism?"

The Presbyterian congregation I joined and all the Presbyterian churches I explored accepted my rc baptism. If one accepts the papist "baptism" as valid, then there is no reason to "rebaptize." 

However, Baptists view the papist baptism as not a valid as to one who is Scripturally baptized, (even though he was once a recipient of the "so-called papist baptism)," is not being re-baptized, but is in truth being baptized for the FIRST time!

My Presbyterian congregation accepted my Roman Catholic baptism. I did renounce my Roman Catholicism and the pope before the elder and the pastor at a private question session before I made a public confession of faith in front of the congregation a few Sundays later and was received into the Presbyterian church and Reformed Protestantism.

I had contemplated being baptized in a Baptist congregation I had also explored and had been attending and worshipping with for a period of time. 

I am very much now a Reformed Protestant theologically and a confessed and communing Presbyterian. While I see the London Baptist Confession of faith as very much similar to the Westminster Confession I don’t agree with their position on sacrament which they see as an ordinance. While I no longer at all believe in the Roman Catholic teaching of the Lords Supper, they call transubstantiation nor the mass which I now see as an abomination I believe like a Presbyterians that Christ makes himself present to us through our faith at His table and His Supper. However The bread I believe remains bread and the wine or juice remain as wine and juice. Also my Presbyterian church and the other Presbyterian congregations I have worshipped with celebrate The Lords Supper monthly, however the Baptists are much less frequent.

While I renounced Roman Catholicism, her pope and its teachings and became a Presbyterian in 2007 I do believe as the Presbyterians regarding the Lords Supper. The question really is do you intend to practice the Reformed Protestant faith as a Presbyterian or a Baptist? 

In grace,
Dudley


----------



## Dao (Sep 8, 2009)

Edward said:


> Your signature says that you are PCA, and that suggests that you adhere to the WCF. It is a violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith to be re-baptized. Are you in the process of renouncing your PCA heritage? Do you subscribe to the BCF? And why would you have to be immersed to get married?



I regularly go to a PCA. My parents and grandparents has always taken me to Presbyterian churches all my childhood and teen life. When I reached my 20's, I went to collage and explored life and found a girlfriend. When both went to a General Baptist church for a few years and when we decided to get married, we found out that the SB minister only marry members of the church. We want to do everything right regarding to Salvation and a Christian life. We got baptized and many months later we got married in a general Baptist church. 
Recently, I had a conversation with my sister and brother in law and I mentioned we had to get baptized to get married from ~that~ minister. We wanted to do everything right regarding to salvation. Since I said something like we got baptized and married along the same lines, they misinterpreted me and claimed I ~ONLY~ got baptized so we could get married. That's why they thought I need to get re-baptized again to commit to Christ, alone, but they both were divorced and remarried and probably lead to their own confusion about the Laws of God. We got baptized by immersion at a SB church at that time. We understood that immersion would be a proper choice of baptism during that period of my life. I consider that to be my adult baptism and I believe that Biblically followed that Salvation plan, once and for all. Correct me if I'm not on the right path. I did question, else where on this forum, if infant baptism qualifies as as "the baptism" but I don't think I read an answer to my question. Shortly later, I explored many churches, all kinds to learn historical styles of worship. After gathering all my studies, I found that the Presbyterian churches would be the wisest choice of denomination to regularly go to.
I was surprised to see you say, "It is a violation of the Westminster Confession of Faith to be re-baptized". I thought "violation" was a strong word but would be interested in seeing that in the Westminster Confession. if possible, I 'd like to see it. Westminster Confession sounds really good to me and seems to be in line with the Calvinistic worship in my view. I'm all for it. If I mention that WC creed to another denomination, that's another story. As you can see, I showed evidence in my posts that I'm not understanding the BCF and find them contradictory and thats why I'm asking questions in such a strong way and hope I didn't insult some viewers here.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 8, 2009)

WCF 28:7 The sacrament of Baptism is *but once to be administered* unto any person (Tit.3:5).

WLC Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ?
Answer: The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that *Baptism is to be administered but once*, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s Supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves.


----------



## A.J. (Sep 8, 2009)

Dao,

You might find this thread helfpul: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/poll-baptists-only-baptism-prerequisite-lords-supper-44373/

Baptists universally hold that the only valid mode of baptism is immersion. So that means that they regard those baptized by sprinkling or pouring as not truly baptized. 

There have been differences among Baptists, however, on whether or not it is proper to admit paedobaptists to the Lord's Supper. 

Some Baptists would insist that a person should have been truly baptized (i.e., immersed in the Name of the Trinity after a profession of faith) before being admitted to the Lord's Supper. These Baptists would not admit Presbyterians since the latter according to them are not validly baptized. 

But other Baptists are of a different view. Though they do not acknowledge the validity of infant baptism (and any baptism administered by sprinkling or pouring for that matter) and would normally/ordinarily require adult baptism by immersion as a prerequisite to the privileges of church membership, they would be willing to admit paedobaptists to the Lord's Supper.

This and similar issues are discussed in the thread I linked.


----------



## Dao (Sep 8, 2009)

dudley said:


> . . .The question really is do you intend to practice the Reformed Protestant faith as a Presbyterian or a Baptist? . . .



I intend to practice Christianity through the Bible, alone.

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 10:16:06 EST-----



A.J. said:


> . . .Baptists universally hold that the only valid mode of baptism is immersion. So that means that they regard those baptized by sprinkling or pouring as not truly baptized. . . .


 Can we say that the General Baptist claims that those without the full immersion are not saved?


----------



## A.J. (Sep 8, 2009)

Dao said:


> Can we say that the General Baptist claims that those without the full immersion are not saved?



No. A person who believes that immersion is necessary for salvation is not a Baptist at all. Baptists universally reject baptismal regeneration.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian (Sep 8, 2009)

Dao,
They sound like Church of Christ people to me. That exclusivist kind of rhetoric about baptism is frequent in C of C churches. It's almost superstitious and certainly not sacramental.

Is it possible that your family is imbibing material from some other source than their local church?


----------



## Dao (Sep 8, 2009)

Classical Presbyterian said:


> Dao,
> They sound like Church of Christ people to me. That exclusivist kind of rhetoric about baptism is frequent in C of C churches. It's almost superstitious and certainly not sacramental.
> 
> Is it possible that your family is imbibing material from some other source than their local church?



Speaking of Church of Christ, Isn't that also called the "Christian church"? I have a church down the road that's called "Christian church" but I can't make out what denomination it is. They do give out those "Christian" magazines. I think they are Campbell-Stone type of preaching. Not sure.

It is possible that there are imbibing materials within my Sister's SB church. Like I said in the original post of this topic, SB can practice anything they want, since they may be creedless (another confusion I have). Cary Loughman think it is a bit overboard to say that an SBC church could teach voodoo or worship Buddha and still be included in the SBC. I regret a little for saying that but then again, whats imbibing material?

-----Added 9/8/2009 at 11:56:05 EST-----



Herald said:


> > . . . When you ask the question, "Do the SB believe" you're using a false premise. SB churches may belong to a common convention, but they are autonomous churches. . . .
> 
> 
> Swimming in a pool of false confessions and creeds, a friend of mine tells me the Calvinist and Lutheran Churches are Confession Churches. Denominations of these have creeds, confessions, catechisms, and statements of faith they either adhere to ...or don't. But -in all cases- are supposed to ! Other denominations can have confessional statements, but explicitly don't mandate them. Congregations, leaders, and members being free to hold to any belief they want ! The Southern Baptist Convention [SBC] is one such denomination. Now, there are Confessional Churches which don't follow their own confession(s) of faith. The PC-USA provides us one such notorious example. But this in violation of their own rules. Whereas, denominations like the SBC have confessions, yet explicitly state that these can be ignored ! Therefore -in practice- they don't really believe in anything. Or, put another way, what individual congregations, ministers, and members believe is up for grabs. They can believe any thing they'd like.


----------



## Marrow Man (Sep 8, 2009)

My mom was asking me a week ago about baptism (she attends a missionary Baptist church in Georgia), asking about sprinkling v. immersion (which she called "dunking"), that sort of thing. The reason she was asking is that the subject came up during a Wed night study -- folks in her church were saying that you "couldn't be saved" unless you went all the way under. Even my mom, who doesn't have a non-Baptist bone in her body, saw that as bunk. The problem, though, is apparently the pastor never corrected anyone for saying that.


----------



## Dao (Sep 8, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> My mom was asking me a week ago about baptism (she attends a missionary Baptist church in Georgia), asking about sprinkling v. immersion (which she called "dunking"), that sort of thing. The reason she was asking is that the subject came up during a Wed night study -- folks in her church were saying that you "couldn't be saved" unless you went all the way under. Even my mom, who doesn't have a non-Baptist bone in her body, saw that as bunk. The problem, though, is apparently the pastor never corrected anyone for saying that.



My mom didn't want her wet gown to cling closely to her body in public. She not to fond of Wet t-shirt contests either.
So, a missionary Baptist church said, "couldn't be saved". Is this in their creed or did the pastor make that up?


----------



## Herald (Sep 8, 2009)

I think this was Dao's question:



> My question is: Do the SB believe that immersion is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper?



I doubt a polemic on baptism is the answer to this question.


----------



## Dao (Sep 8, 2009)

Herald said:


> I think this was Dao's question:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They will have to be careful about telling me, I'm going to hell. It's perfectly alright for me to defend myself. I'd rather defend myself with God's Word as much as possible. They might want to burn my at stake like the Catholics did to Luther's close friend. I hope it don't come to that but I do push it like Luther does.


----------



## Edward (Sep 8, 2009)

Dao said:


> Speaking of Church of Christ, Isn't that also called the "Christian church"? I have a church down the road that's called "Christian church" but I can't make out what denomination it is. They do give out those "Christian" magazines. I think they are Campbell-Stone type of preaching. Not sure.



Since the WCF question was already answered before I got back, I'll take this one.

Church of Christ and Christian Churches are two different groups. Think of them as liberal and conservative cousins, both in the Campbellite line. (CoC being the more conservative Campbellites, the DoC (Disciples of Christ, or Christian Church) being much more liberal.) 

As noted, both are Campbellite in heritage, both are congregational, both have warped understanding of the sacraments, but you are more likely to find pro-abortionists and practicing homosexuals in the DOC than the COC.

DoC is in the National Council of Churches, the CoC, to the best of my recollection, is not.


----------



## Dao (Sep 10, 2009)

dudley said:


> . . .However, Baptists view the papist baptism as not a valid as to one who is Scripturally baptized, (even though he was once a recipient of the "so-called papist baptism)," is not being re-baptized, but is in truth being baptized for the FIRST time! . . .


My online friend said: Presbyterian dogma is baptism once with the Trinitarian formula such as sprinkling, pouring, dipping, spraying. Dunking is immaterial because baptism is about what God does ...not what we do. Even a false minister can perform a valid baptism if the Trinitarian formula is used. Baptized infants become members of Christ's Church especially the Visible Church. This baptism represents what God does for us instead of something we do for God. Baptism isn't primarily a demonstration of our faith as the Southern Baptist BFM claims.
---------
Acts 2:38-39 (New American Standard Bible)
38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
----------

It's not a promise we make to the Lord but
a promise of salvation God makes to the elect.

"For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself" (NASB)

Note: not 'as many as accept Jesus'.


----------



## Rogerant (Sep 10, 2009)

So then, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that salvation is effectuated by the acts of the priest in the administration of baptism. Reformed paedo-baptists teach that the regenerative act of the Holy Spirit effectuates salvation to the elect. And Arminian credo-baptists teach that the credible confession of faith of those who believe effectuates salvation.

But what if a person, who thought that he made a credable confession of faith when he was 12 years old, realizes that he didn't actually trust Christ? Why don't the Arminian credo-baptists "re-baptize" that person if he finally trusts in Christ when he is 30? If his confession of faith when he was 12 was not credible, should he not be re-baptized?


----------



## Dao (Sep 10, 2009)

Rogerant said:


> . . . If his confession of faith when he was 12 was not credible, should he not be re-baptized?


The friend replied: it's an Acts 2:38-39 thing: Baptism is a "promise" God makes to the Elect. What matters most being our Election ...NOT so much our profession of faith. If the person isn't elect, then baptism is totally meaningless for them. Whereas, if the person is Elect, then the "promise" God makes in baptism carries over to when they're eventually converted.


----------



## dudley (Oct 11, 2009)

*I have a question for my Reformed Protestant bretheran here on the PB.*

I have a question for my Reformed Protestant bretheran here on the PB. I am considering and trying to decide whether or not I should be baptized as a Protestant in the Reformed Baptist church. I wrote a while back on this forum about being baptized as a Protestant in the Presbyterian church. I have been a Presbyterian since 2007 by public affirmation of faith. I am as many on here know an ex roman catholic. I left roman Catholicism in 2006. The Presbyterian churches the opc the pca and the pc usa all accept my rc baptism. I question the validity because I no longer see roman catholicism as a true Christian faith. I renounced the roman catholic church and faith and her pope and all her heretical teachings which are contrary to scripture. I want to be baptized as a Protestant and started to explore and attend a Reformed Baptist congregation.They would receive me in the ordinance of baptism by immersion. I have been worshipping with them and I am in the Inquirers class.

The 'Reformed Baptist' congregation I am exploring hold to the five points of Calvinism and they immerse believers to the fact that Baptism is properly and biblically administered by immersion. I do want to be baptized as a Protestant and I believe at this point I am going to receive the ordinance of baptism as a Baptist. 

They hold to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 and I have read and discussed it with the pastor and elders and I accept their position or the two ordinances of Baptism and the Lords Supper. 

They attest to such biblical truths as sola fide justification by faith alone , sola gratia salvation by God's grace alone, sola scriptura the bible alone is the basis for faith and practice, and soli deo gloria the fact that God alone is to receive glory in the salvation of sinners which I believe are the hallmarks of the Protestant and Reformed Faith.

Please see my profile on visitors page I already made the change to the London Baptist Confession here on the PB.

In faith,
Dudley

PS If you wish to send me a private message or e mail and prefer not to answer on this forum I would also appreciate and respect that. I know the Presbyterian and many Baptists disagree on this point. I am now solidly a Reformed Protestant and would stay in the Presbyterian fold where I have been a communing member for 2 years. However they do not want to Baptise me. They accept my rc baptism as valid and I do not.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Oct 11, 2009)

A.J. said:


> Dao,
> 
> You might find this thread helfpul:
> 
> ...




Not all baptists hold to immersion. Some, such as the Mennonites practice baptism by pouring.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 11, 2009)

Let's add Martyn Lloyd-Jones to the mix. He eventually moved away from a paedo position and thought that bible supported credo baptism, but he was strongly in favor of sprinkling instead of immersion. Hecalled himself "a congregation of one" on the subject.


----------

