...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?
Come on over and eat some twinkies and Sprite for communion then.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?
...and, according to your Confession, God cares most about the externals in the ordinance?
Come on over and eat some twinkies and Sprite for communion then.
Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.
We all follow some sort of formula don't we Rich. Baptizing in water, for instance, instead of a dip in jello. We also baptize in the name of the Trinity.
Our respective formulas just differ as to what makes or breaks the deal (i.e. how much leeway is possible before we count the exercise not as baptism bt as not merely irregular but invalid altogether).
If you jump on the baptists for being too picky on the externals, make sure you remember this the next time you argue for wine instead of grape juice in the Lord's supper or even juice at all instead of orange drink or Fanta Orang soda. Insistance on bread and wine sounds so formulaic, after all, doesn't it?
I would quote our confession to you but it would serve little purpose since you are not beholding to it. I'm also not trying to convince paedobaptists. I'd be just as happy if this serves to encourage and fortify the faith of my Baptist brethren.Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John's pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:34,14). Fundamentally, baptism signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11, 12) and this union with Christ is the source of every element of our salvation (1 John 5:11, 12). Receiving the sign of baptism in faith assures those baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live in a new way as disciples of Jesus.
Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.
And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.
Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.
R.C. Sproul (no Baptist, I might add) wrote:
I would quote our confession to you but it would serve little purpose since you are not beholding to it. I'm also not trying to convince paedobaptists. I'd be just as happy if this serves to encourage and fortify the faith of my Baptist brethren.Christian baptism, which has the form of a ceremonial washing (like John's pre-Christian baptism), is a sign from God that signifies inward cleansing and remission of sins (Acts 22:16; 1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25-27), Spirit-wrought regeneration and new life (Titus 3:5), and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit as God's seal testifying and guaranteeing that one will be kept safe in Christ forever (1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:34,14). Fundamentally, baptism signifies union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-7; Col. 2:11, 12) and this union with Christ is the source of every element of our salvation (1 John 5:11, 12). Receiving the sign of baptism in faith assures those baptized that God's gift of new life in Christ is freely given to them. At the same time, it commits them to live in a new way as disciples of Jesus.
Rich, baptism by immersion is representative of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. That is why mode is important to Baptists.
And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.
On the contrary:
Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12
*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
Matthew, really? That is rather ad hominem of you. Not something I usually expect.
And there is not a piece of Scriptural support for this connection. Hence immersionists nullify God's ordinances by their human traditions.
On the contrary:
Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12
*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.
On the contrary:
Romans 6:3-4 / Colossians 2:12
*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.
You are correct in saying that we (Baptists) are viewing that Paul has mode in mind because what better way symbolizes this? Not sprinking, but immersion. But Baptists do not interpret this to mean that baptism is itself the union with Christ, but that it is the symbolism of the union that came through faith.
*sigh... Looks like I'll be in the discussion after all...
Again, you're inserting a view that Paul has mode in mind. In fact, pressed too hard, it argues that the mode itself is what unites us to Christ. Baptism signifies these things but faith is the instrument of union with Christ in His death and resurrection. The idea that, by being immersed, we're "buried with Christ" carries with it the idea that the ordinance itself confers union with Christ.
You are correct in saying that we (Baptists) are viewing that Paul has mode in mind because what better way symbolizes this? Not sprinking, but immersion. But Baptists do not interpret this to mean that baptism is itself the union with Christ, but that it is the symbolism of the union that came through faith.
Understood but the point is that you can't just quote Romans 6:3-4 and say: "What better symbolizes this?"
Baptism signifies more than burial and resurrection. As Matthew noted, it also symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit.
Why, for instance, is pouring then not a more apt mode especially since this is the only evidence we have of the mode of baptism in the Acts? Namely, that the Holy Spirit was poured out on those who received the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
Understood but the point is that you can't just quote Romans 6:3-4 and say: "What better symbolizes this?"
Baptism signifies more than burial and resurrection. As Matthew noted, it also symbolizes the outpouring of the Spirit.
If we can get back to an effort to understand, as this thread attempted to start out doing, Rich has a valid observation. We can't take this verse and say, "See, there it is." This verse is included in our comprehensive understanding as credos. However, on its own, it does not make the case plain. It has to do with the Analogy of Faith, exegesis of various texts and a systematic understanding of baptism. All of these conspire together to help us understand baptism.
The problem with what I expect Todd is facing, and what many Baptist churches face, is that they do NOT have a comprehensive understanding of baptism. Though, from a Baptist perspective, the doctrine of baptism seems blatantly simple, a thorough understanding is helpful, and needed for those who proclaim Christ from a credo understanding. This is missing in most Baptist preachers that I have met, so is not clearly understood in their churches.
Will, you're derailing it again. I didn't make these comments to prove anything against Baptists. I AM a credo. Swinging the discussion around against Presbyterians doesn't help the conversation at all. The line of discussion that I put forward leads to a need for credo churches to not only take a position, but understand their position more thoroughly. I've only been involved in two churches that truly understood why they were credo. I've been in several that could offer a simplistic argument. But so much is missed in this. Again, I think this is what Todd is facing. The situation at hand reveals an incomplete and, hence, inconsistent understanding of baptism.
I'd like to know from the credo-baptists among us why the following sort of thing occurs today in the modern church. These are not hypothetical cases, but real situations I know about, and am considering responding to by contacting the pastors and/or individuals involved - but wanted to flesh out the discussion here first.
When a family desires to join a baptist church - is inquiry always made about the baptisms of the family? I.e. were they baptized as infants, professors, whatever? I assume that if they are accepted as members either a) the church recognizes infant baptism of those so baptized as valid or b) the church accepts into membership those that it does not view as having properly been baptized. I'm particularly interested in knowing the difference between Reformed baptists and those who are involved in the SBC, or other baptist wings of the church that don't confessionally hold to the LBC.
Supposing situation a) above... what if a person who joined the church desired later to be baptized as an act of obedience, because personally they viewed their earlier infant baptism to be invalid. How would such a person be counselled in this case?
It seems to me that a proper view of church membership must include, in any case, the acceptance of the baptism of the proposed member - or include the baptism of that proposed member as an act of joining the church. Is that consistent with most baptist practice (esp. in "Reformed baptist" circles)? Could a member be accepted if the church viewed him as unbaptized - and... if he was viewed as baptized, would a "new" baptism ever be performed under any circumstances?
I hope the discussion is profitable - not just because of what I've run across but for the understanding about modern baptist (and Reformed baptist) practice for those of us who are steeped in paedobaptism personally and just haven't the experience with various kinds of credobaptist practices.
I didn't see it as heated. Only that the way you communicated your concerns, I was questioning if anything fruitful could result from it beyond heated emotions and that the other side could make equal claims toward the previous side.I hope I didn't come across as "heated."
And I would charge Presbyterians of the same lack of thorough exegesis and understanding of baptism from a comprehensive ecclesiological role of the holistic church concept that includes Lord's Supper, Salvation, church membership, etc., whereas it is Baptist ecclesiology that makes the best argument and biblical case on this. And I have yet to find a Presbyterian pastor or elder that has a clear understanding of this.
So where does this line of argument lead us beyond heated emotions?
And I would charge Presbyterians of the same lack of thorough exegesis and understanding of baptism from a comprehensive ecclesiological role of the holistic church concept that includes Lord's Supper, Salvation, church membership, etc., whereas it is Baptist ecclesiology that makes the best argument and biblical case on this. And I have yet to find a Presbyterian pastor or elder that has a clear understanding of this.
So where does this line of argument lead us beyond heated emotions?
Will,
Let me understand, is what you are saying that Presbyterians obviously lack a thorough exegesis, etc and clear understanding of the issues otherwise they would be Baptists?
Isn't that a bit disingenuous?
I do not think that paedobaptists such as myself should get too worked up on this subject as we have no problem with believers baptism as being valid and the mode of baptism is of limited importance, there is also historical acceptance of their position. It is much more a problem for Baptists and how they are able to have fellowship with those they see as unbaptised. However it is an important point and it is unsatisfactory to just repeat what a confession says.
A Presbyterian would not accept anyone who has not been baptised as a member of the Church, baptism is so important it is not optional. A Baptist does not accept that a presbyterian has been baptised but still accepts that person as a member of the Church.
A Presbyterian would not accept anyone who has not been baptised as a member of the Church, baptism is so important it is not optional. A Baptist does not accept that a presbyterian has been baptised but still accepts that person as a member of the Church.
Allow me to make a point of clarification on this matter. Currently, Baptists are divided on this issue about our relationship with paedobaptists desiring to join Baptist churches. One group of Baptists want to have the attitude of the Presbyterians of recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate baptism and, consequently, accepting them into membership. Another group of Baptists remain firm to the historical doctrinal position Baptists have always stood on from the beginning by not recognizing paedobaptism as legitimate, and thus until they are baptized by professed believers, are not considered members but mere visitors or guests.
I haven't run into the scenario you give where a church rejects paedobaptism but nonetheless accepts them into church membership. If such Baptist churches and groups do exist, they are definitely in the wrong.
Please note one thing. Many Baptist churches today are in terrible shape on this issue of baptism and church membership. Which is why the SBC had an annual meeting earlier this month to discuss the issue of Regenerate Church Membership. Much of the historical and theological foundations have been lost as a result of pragmatism, church growth movement, liberalism, etc. So Founder's Ministry, 9Marks, and other Reformed Baptist ministries are calling all Baptists back to the biblical and historically Baptist roots.
If you wish to see a true model of historic Reformed Baptist ecclesiology of baptism and its implication to church membership, please visit an ARBCA church or CHBC in D.C. Any other Baptist church, including many associated with Founders Ministry, are in various stages on this.