Joel Rainey is the Director of Missions at Mid-Maryland Baptist Association, an adjunct professor at Capital Bible Seminary and blogs at Themelios (Twitter – @joelrainey).
Hopefully, it will surprise no one reading these words to discover that I’m a Baptist. I was brought to a Baptist church for the first time when I was just a few days old. I heard the message of Jesus, and became one of His followers in a Baptist church. I was licensed and duly ordained as a Baptist minister, I’m a two-time graduate of a Baptist seminary, and I lead a Baptist missions entity. So I’m about as Baptist as they come.
And when I say I’m a Baptist, that’s more than merely a statement of how I was raised or who cuts my paycheck. I am confessionally, convictionally, Baptist. I love my Presbyterian brothers and sisters, believe we will be in heaven together, and greatly appreciate their focus on the continuity of the Biblical narrative as it is contained in Covenant Theology. Yet my best understanding of the Scriptures teaches me that infants are not, automatically, children of that covenant and thus, are not candidates for baptism. So I could never be a Presbyterian.
I also believe that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are still active today–ALL of them, including the ones that make some of my fellow Baptists nervous. As such, I love and appreciate my Pentecostal brothers and sisters for their focus on the empowering necessity of the Holy Spirit. At the same time, the Pentecostal understanding of how miraculous phenomenon like speaking in tongues are connected to Holy Spirit baptism are problematic for a guy like me, who believes we are as immersed as we will ever be by the Holy Spirit at the moment of our conversion. So I wouldn’t make a very good, faithful Pentecostal either.
Additionally, I see the book of Acts revealing an early multiplication of very strong, and very free, self-governing churches, which means I’d be inelligible for inclusion in the United Methodist Church also. Just about any way you cut me, I bleed a brand of Christian faith that can accurately be called “Baptist.”
Yet even with the convictions I hold, I’ve been blessed, encouraged, empowered, informed, challenged, and grown by men and women from across the denominational spectrum of evangelicalism. In many ways, I would not be the man, husband, father, or pastor I am today without the positive influences of people like Tim Keller, Lawrence White, D. James Kennedy, Jack Hayford, Chuck Swindoll, Anne Graham Lotz, Bryan Chapel, Loran Livingston, Chuck Colson, Eric Metaxas, John Calvin, Martin Luther, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, and a host of others. And none of the above-named people are Baptist!
In other words, I don’t mind belonging to a particular “tribe” of Christianity, so long as it doesn’t succumb to tribalism. Yet a movement is afoot in my denomination that would seek to “cleanse” us from anything, or any influence that isn’t distinctly Baptist. Sometimes this is motivated by an apparent fear that our people will join another denomination because of someone who influences them.
And yes, sometimes, a brother or sister may come to different convictions than I do about something that causes them to be true to their integrity, and join a tradition that more accurately alligns with their beliefs. Truly, there are worse things that can happen in our churches than the above display of doctrinal integrity. But honestly, if reading a single quote from D. James Kennedy turns one of my parishioners into a Presbyterian, I don’t think the problem is D. James Kennedy!
Currently, there is much discussion in our denomination about a number of movements and/or theological persuasions, and whether these pose a threat to our existence as Baptists. But of all the “isms” I know of that exist within our ranks, none from my vantage point seem to pose as big a threat as does “tribalism.”
Tribalism might be a threat to you if:
1. Denominationalism is a substitute for discipleship. By any measurable standard, the evangelical world as a whole is not “making disciples,” as Jesus commanded, at least not those of the Romans 12:1-2 sort. So, when you discover someone who is actually making disciples–marriages are strong, kids are raised in the fear of God, addictions are overcome, and society is positively changed as a result of the Gospel–is your first reaction to celebrate that fact, or is it to make sure that ministry performs baptisms the same way yours does, or holds to your own doctrinal position on alcohol consumption, Calvinism, or worship style? If so, you may be a victim of tribalism.
2. Secondary issues are elevated to Gospel issues. A few years ago, one of our mission boards actually stated that baptism by immersion as a sign of conversion wasn’t enough to be a “Baptist” missionary. It had to have taken place in a church that affirms “eternal security.” So, if you were confessionally, convictionally Baptist, but were immersed in a Pentecostal or Nazarene environment, you were put out to pasture, unless you agreed to be “baptized” in an SBC church. When I asked one trustee about this decision, I was actually told that holiness and Pentecostal churches teach “a works salvation in reverse.” This man demonstrated both a horrible misunderstanding of the historical and theological underpinnings of Arminianism, as well as a grotesquely myopic view of the meaning of baptism. I’m not sure which of these caused the other in this “chicken-egg” conundrum, but the end result was a claim that because Pentecostals don’t believe as we do on an issue not central to saving faith, they don’t proclaim the Gospel at all. When a command of Jesus is domesticated and perverted to the extent that you believe it identifies you with a denominational tradition more than the King of Kings, you might be a victim of tribalism.
3. Identity turns to Isolation. Occasionally, I run into this in the church planting world, when I’m told, in spite of the fact that there may be multiple Gospel-preaching churches in a given area, that we may need to put a church there anyway because “there is no BAPTIST work there.” Thankfully, such hubris doesn’t exist in my Association or state convention, but I’ve certainly heard this sort of thing in the larger Baptist world. If you think we don’t need other Christian traditions working with us to accomplish the Great Commission–or worse yet, if you think the Great Commission can’t be accomplished unless we are driving the work in a given area–you may be a victim of tribalism.
I think our work is important, and I think our identity is important. As the head of a Baptist missions entity, that’s why I won’t put a Lutheran on the field to plant a church, or encourage one of my established churches to hire a Pentecostal, or consider anyone for missionary service under our banner who would be OK with throwing water on a baby and calling it baptism. But I don’t have to be your twin to be your brother, and the sooner all Southern Baptists realize our dire need for the wider body of Christ to accomplish His mission, the healthier and more effective we will be within our own tribe. Ironically, that will also be the moment when our identity is more firmly established, because it will be in Jesus.
Good post, Joel
“I think our work is important, and I think our identity is important. As the head of a Baptist missions entity, that’s why I won’t put a Lutheran on the field to plant a church, or encourage one of my established churches to hire a Pentecostal, or consider anyone for missionary service under our banner who would be OK with throwing water on a baby and calling it baptism. ”
That makes sense.
I don’t want to be tribal or divisive, but Canadians are simply not allowed on SBC Voices for the next 48 to 72 hours.
Now THAT is something worth fighting over! 🙂
I have a question…
Why are they ever allowed at all? 😉
oops…delete that please, Dave…NSFW
Greg, what goes on the internet, stays on the internet. 😉
Yeah…oh well…what can I say. Usually I can spot stuff like that on my first scan.
I took it down for ya
Now I’m curious.
You can find it in the comment trash can if you really want…
It was a poem that played off the phrase “Canuck-nuck-nuck” that my brain put together between your comment and the Three Stooges “nyuck-nyuck-nyuck”. It was actually hilarious, but it dropped an f-bomb which isn’t acceptable at my workplace. I missed it on my first scan but the concern about rhymes with “Canuck” made me do a second scan.
Great post, Joel! May your tribe increase.
Thanks Todd. Sometimes Im a little slow to notice things, & just now saw the pun intended part of this post. So only now can I truly say “I see what you did there.”
Maybe ANTI Tribe is a Tribe? Maybe yall are into Tribalism, big time?
David 🙂
Lol….
Years ago it was “cool” among some teenaged girls to claim to be nonconformists and dress in all black, wearing black lipstick, nail polish and such….I always playfully mocked them saying “if you band together dress alike and act alike, you’re not exactly non conformists”. Lol.
Just so we’re clear, Joel, the ridiculous IMB policy requiring baptism in a church that believes in eternal security is still in place.
And, I too was given the rationale by the trustee who crafted the policy that Arminians supposedly teach a false gospel. This policy has received much criticism over the years and even sparked an effort and an approved motion from the SBC floor (aka the “Garner” motion). It’s time for that policy to be revised!
I agree the policy essentially requiring baptism in a Southern Baptist church is without a doubt, as a teacher of mine was fond of saying, a superfluity of poppycock.
There may be a little more to that requirement under the surface. Landmarkism is still an influence in some areas of the SBC. Of course, that too is a superfluity of poppycock.
No question that landmarkist error was a hugely influential force behind this decision.
To be clear…I think both believers baptism by immersion and a personal conviction to it on the part of the SBC Zmissionary should be required….
But to go so far as prohibiting a qualified missionary on the basis that he/she was baptized in a church or by a pastor who doesn’t walk the line is a little much.
I’m sure some who were baptized in SBC churches were potentially baptized by pastors who may deny scriptural inerrancy or authority (they do exist in the SBC)…but as for the candidate they’ve rejected that teaching and demonstrated such….are they prohibited too?
“I’m sure some who were baptized in SBC churches were potentially baptized by pastors who may deny scriptural inerrancy or authority (they do exist in the SBC . . . ”
Right as the rain. . . . and therein did lay the problem with much of the IMB wars which launched Baptist Blogging to a second branch of Baptist Press.
A lot of what sparked all the blogging wasn’t as much about Landmarkism, as it was about having a sound belief about baptism. We had people advocating baptisms by Mormons as being okay. We had people saying that it was an okay baptism, if a Momma baptized her child in the backyard, kiddy pool with just her and the child involved. And, we even had people saying that baptisms by the Church of Christ should be looked upon as being allowed and accepted.
The question then discussed was….who had to be okay with the baptism? the person? or, the Church? Or, is baptism a personal ordiance, or is it a Church ordinance? Did Jesus tell the Church to baptize? Or, did He give the command to each, individual Christian?
Many of us were encouraging and exhorting everyone to believe soundly about baptism….that it’s a Church ordinance, and not a personal ordinance….that the Church shouldn’t accept the baptism of Mormons and Campbellite Churches, and by Big Momma in the backyard.
David
David, absolutely no one advocated baptism by Mormons. That was a twisting if his statement which was continued for political purposes even after clarification. Unfair.
It was stated that the person would accept the baptism of the person, who had been baptized by a Mormon Church, if the person was truly saved, and did not believe that the baptism saved him.
That’s the truth of it. And, it’s still accepting a Mormon baptism, no matter which way you slice it.
David
Just saw this. I haven’t been checking the comment streams for a couple of days.
David,
Everyone who has followed Baptist blogs closely for sometime now knows you are talking about me. I appreciate you not naming names, and understand why you did not, but that still does not excuse what you have done here. There is some nuance involved, and I admit it may appear convoluted to some, because the issues are somewhat complicated; but the way you have stated your case here (if indeed you are referring to me) is simply not true, and can be interpreted as slander.
We have had this discussion online on various occasions, and I have already laid out my position clearly, which does not correspond to what you say here. I am not particularly interested in rehashing all this again, but if anyone still has any doubts as to what I believe am willing to explain.
In the meantime, I would ask you, David, to not make false statements about me, even if you don’t identify me by name.
David Rogers,
I truly do not mean to slander you, or anyone else. What was the false statement? Did you not state that you believed that we should accept the baptism of someone, who was baptized by a Mormon? It is truly my understanding that this is a Mormon baptism, no matter how you slice it. I just can’t see it any other way. Honestly.
So, if you can explain it to me, I’d be glad to say that you wouldn’t fit into the category of accepting a Mormon baptism. Although, I’d bet that there are others, out there, who would accept just about any kind of baptism, out there, in SBC land. In fact, I’ve heard some of them talk about it.
Again, David, I love you in the Lord, and I mean no harm towards you. I was just simply stating the discussion on baptism that once occurred in blog land.
God bless you,
David Worley
Okay, David. I accept your apology, and I don’t judge your motives.
1. When I wrote about this way back, I was responding to a question that was asked that set me up. I did not bring up the topic myself, nor had any reason to bring it up.
2. The issue at stake is the absolute necessity of a so-called valid administrator in order to make baptism valid. If we say that only those who are truly saved and have truly gospel doctrine are the only valid administrators, we run into a problem. Many people are baptized by those who may be harboring some unknown doctrinal heresy, or who were never truly saved themselves. If the validity of baptism hinged on the validity of the administrator, we would all have to continually go back and make sure the person or group which baptized us was not heretical, or that some heresy had not come to light about them that we were not aware of when we were baptized. We would always have to be looking back.
3. We could say a valid baptism was one done by an administrator that the baptismal candidate accepted by good faith at the time as having orthodox gospel doctrine. But many, if not most, new believers do not know enough to have a detailed understanding on many of these issues. They just know they are trusting Christ and want to follow through on His command to be baptized.
4. I would never ever recommend that someone go to the Mormons to be baptized. It makes no sense. They do not believe or teach the gospel, and their motives for baptizing are not gospel motives. I do not in any way, shape, or form endorse “Mormon baptism.”
5. My only question has to do with the sincere believer in Christ, who is truly born again, who for some bizarre reason is convinced that a person somewhere, somehow, for some strange reason, who happened to be a Mormon, was a valid baptizer. Frankly, I can’t imagine this happening. I don’t know why it ever would. But under the bizarre circumstance that it did, should they be baptized by the Mormon? No! But what if they, without realizing what they were doing, thinking they were being obedient to Christ, and for all the right reasons, are baptized by the Mormon, even without knowing what Mormonism is and what Mormons believe and stand for? Must they be baptized again because of their own ignorance at the time, even though their motives were right, and their trust in Jesus was authentic, and was based on the Christian gospel, not the Mormon false gospel? If we say yes, then we must also, as I understand it, go back and investigate every other baptizer to make sure they were not harboring some secret heresy. We can never be sure of the validity of our baptism–because it then does not depend on our obedience and the intention of our heart, but rather on the doctrinal orthodoxy of the baptizer.
6. Ideally, it would be best for everyone to be baptized by someone who has a good Christian testimony and who has correct doctrine on all the essentials. In the real world in which we live, though, sometimes there are surprises, and things that come to light we were not previously aware of. Our conscience before the Lord, with regard to baptism, should be based on the intentions of OUR heart, and what WE were meaning to communicate when we were baptized, not by the intentions of SOMEONE ELSE’S heart that we had no way of knowing at the time we were baptized. What if we were baptized in a church that had the name Baptist on the front door, but, unbeknownst to us, the pastor of the church, or the members of the church, held to heretical doctrine? Would that invalidate our baptism, if we were baptized believing in the true gospel and assuming those who did the baptizing believed in the true gospel as well? If in some sense when we were baptized we were trusting in the Mormon false gospel (or any other false gospel) though, then by all means, once we realize this, we should be baptized again, outwardly expressing our trust in the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
That is my argument, which I still stand by.
By the way, the following article by Kevin DeYoung, who is a Presbyterian, and a true brother in Christ with whom I agree on many things, is a good example to me of where the teaching that baptism hinges on a valid adminstrator leads you.
I think the many people who commented refuting his arguments (or at least the great majority of them) are spot on, and point out the biblical inconsistencies with this line of thinking. I recommend reading all the comments.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/mobile/article/kevindeyoung/who-can-baptize
Why was my comment deleted, Dave? I honestly cannot understand why that comment with a quote from David R. Would be deleted???
Boy, y’all are really get delete happy.
David
David,
I am not sure exactly why your comment was deleted, but I can imagine why. As part of the team of contributors here, I was able to look in the deleted comments folder and found your comment. Though it was indeed a quote of mine from a blogpost of several years ago, it did not add any new information to what I have already stated here. I was saying essentially the same thing in that comment as I have said here in my lengthy six-point comment, only I explain myself with greater detail here.
To be totally honest, I can somewhat understand why you feel you have not misrepresented me. The problem, as I see it, is you restate and abbreviate my view in language that fails to capture the nuance of what I am saying and could easily lead those who are reading to assume things about my view that are not true.
Believe me, I am on no soapbox to defend Mormon baptism. The ironic thing about all this to me is I am probably among the most hardline commenters here with regard to collaborating with Mormons on moral and political issues. But your comment could easily lead others to assume that I take a soft view toward Mormon teaching in general.
But I am not trying to hide from or cover up what I have written. That is why I take the time to answer you here. I just don’t see the point in rehashing this over and over again. I think that may be why your comment was deleted. It did not contribute anything positive to the conversation.
I still don’t think my comment should’ve been deleted. I’m just scratching my head at why it would be. I was just trying to show from the comment why I thought the way I did, and it was not slander, to be saying what I said.
David
David Worley,
For what it’s worth, I agree – your comment should not have been deleted.
You were simply defending and explaining what you said.
But then, a number of my comments here have also been deleted.
David R. Brumbelow
Thanks, David B.
David W.
It was a bad policy then and it still is now.
Dave,
As I’ve said before….many times….I’m not a Landmarkist. I would be willing to accept any baptism, if it’s done because the person was saved, and it was by immersion, and the Church believed in salvation by grace thru faith. So, if a baptism was done by a Church that believes like we do about salvation and baptism, then it should be considered a good, Scriptural baptism….whether it’s by Freewill Church, or Providence Church, or by Hallelujah People’s Church, or Cross Pointe Church, or CrossWay Church, or Life Point Church, or Grace Point Church, or by Holy Spirit Assembly of God, or whatever kind of Church.
David
So…..
I know of many Presbyterian churches that if they have someone come to faith as a teen or adult (particularly if it is on a missions trip or youth camp), they will baptize them (assuming they were not baptized as an infant), through immersion. And I don’t know of any presbyterian church that does not believe in Sola Gratia and Sola Fida.
So, would you accept that baptism? It fits all your criteria.
SVMUS,
OF course, I would be for accepting that baptism. Yes. But, of course, it’s a Church decision….so, it depends on the Church.
And, the IMB should accept such baptisms….IMHO.
David
I assume you’re referring to the more conservative and Reformed Presbyterian churches?
SVM,
That is true. I know Presbyterian ministers (PCA) who would baptize by immersion upon a profession of faith. It is fairly rare but does occur. It should also be noted that PCA baptisms are to occur in the context of a worship service where the word is preached and is to be performed by a duly ordained minister of the gospel.
Question: Would you all receive that baptism if the recipient then immediately upon baptism also partook of communion and drank wine from that little cup? 🙂 🙂
Now Les, you know good and well that If they use real wine…Volfan woukd say that is “unwise”. 😉
Tarheel,
You know me well.
David 🙂
Tarheel,
I was just trying to add a little levity (not the synonym “light-headedness”).
BTW, is there such a thing a unreal wine? 🙂
Lol.
I was joining in the fun…and to answer your question…
NO. 🙂
Tarheel,
You get Presbyterian, sprinkling and wine in the comment thread on a Baptist blog and well… 🙂
Les. Prouty and Tarheel,
The use of beverage alcohol kills more children than do all illegal drugs combined. The use of alcohol as a beverage is unwise. You may try as you please, but you will never be able to “wash that down” no matter how much you drink to try.
The use of wine in communion, or a single glass with a dinner every once in a while, or the enjoyment of a beverage by one who never reaches intoxication….does all that?
Wow.
Jesus and the apostles really started something when they occasionally drank it didn’t they?! 🙂
CB,
Where is that statistic? I found this:
Number of deaths for leading causes of death
• Heart disease: 597,689
• Cancer: 574,743
• Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 138,080
• Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 129,476
• Accidents (unintentional injuries): 120,859
• Alzheimer’s disease: 83,494
• Diabetes: 69,071
• Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,476
• Influenza and Pneumonia: 50,097
• Intentional self-harm (suicide): 38,364
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2010, table 10
and…
Cause of death (Data from 2010 unless otherwise noted) Number All Causes 2,468,435 Diseases of Heart 780,213 Malignant Neoplasms [Cancer] 574,743 Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases 138,080 Cerebrovascular Diseases 129,476 Accidents (Unintentional Injuries) [Total] 120,859 Motor Vehicle Accidents [subset of Total Accidents] 35,332 Alzheimer’s Disease 83,494 Diabetes Mellitus 69,071 Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome and Nephrosis 50,476 Influenza and Pneumonia 50,097 Drug-Induced Deaths1 40,393 Intentional Self-Harm (Suicide) 38,364 Septicemia 34,812 Chronic Liver Disease and Cirrhosis 31,903 Firearm Injuries 31,672 Essential Hypertension and Hypertensive Renal Disease 26,634 Alcohol-Induced Deaths 25,692 Parkinson’s Disease 22,032 Pneumonitis Due to Solids and Liquids 17,011 Homicide 16,259 Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 8,369 Viral hepatitis 7,564 All Illicit Drugs Combined (2000)2 17,0002 Cannabis (Marijuana)3 0
Yep.
Leave the stuff alone. You will grow up far more healthy, wealthy, and far, far more wise.
Les Pourty,
Start with these guys and work your through it for a few days:
The Council on Alcohol and Drugs, livedrugfree.org
Or, just keep laughing. The choice is yours.
CB, I’m not laughing. Seriously. Any death is not a laughing matter. I just had not seen that stat before. I’ll look it up.
CB, I went to the link. I can’t find stats. Maybe one needs to be a member or something. Seriously interested in the stats though, so if you or someone could find a link that would be much appreciated.
Les Prouty,
Did you think I just made that up? Do you think I just woke up one day and said, I know, I’ll just jump on guys who use Beverage alcohol and give them a hard time for the fun of it.”??
It is not funny to me either. To me, it is a shame that is going to come back to bite far too many who think they were able to handle what they can’t. . . . and kids die because of it.
I like you Les Prouty. I think highly of your ministry to children. But you are as wrong as you can be about the use of beverage alcohol and so are many others.
However, we do agree: It is no laughing matter.
No CB I don’t think you just made it up. I would just like to see the report containing the stats. I will use it to teach as well. What you stated is tragic. Children should not be using beverage alcohol or illegal drugs. This can be an excellent teaching tool. I will need the report to back up what I say though. I just could not find it where you pointed me.
So if you can point me to the report that will be greatly appreciated.
For adult consumption of beverage alcohol, “you are as wrong as you can be…and so are many others.”
Les Prouty,
You will find it. I did. And yes, I do belong to and support the Southeast Georgia Alcohol Abuse Prevention Initiative. However, the material is not blocked or hidden. You can find it and you should.
And no, I am not wrong about adult use of beverage alcohol. Les, where do you think kids get their beverage alcohol? From Wes Kenney’s mule? Not hardly.
CB, I finally found the quote on a linked site. Now looking for the source for the statement. No direct link was provided for the statement.
Thanks.
We have argued the moderate use of beverage alcohol forever but here are some good stats for using red wine:
https://www.yahoo.com/food/is-red-wine-the-absolute-best-thing-you-can-drink-77734088911.html
David, If the IMB would revise their policy by simply cutting and pasting your paragraph above into their manual, I’d be for it, and I think you and they would find that this issue would quickly no longer be an issue. The problem is that the BoT went much further. I’m with you–allowing a Mormon baptism would be to take away from the Scriptural meaning of the ordinance, because Mormons–wonderful people as they are–do not believe or proclaim the Christian Gospel. But Pentecostals, Nazarenes, and other Arminian churches who practice believer’s baptism by immersion do, so to say baptisms taking place in their midst were not Scriptural is to add to the Word of God. Tribalism is prone to add to His Word.
Your statement above is a FAR more doctrinally sound statement on baptism than our IMB holds to.
Wow, this discussion has that deja vu feeling; doesn’t it?
David
Its deja vu all over again.
But, I absolutely would NOT be for accepting baptisms by a Mormon Church, or by the JW’s, or by the Campbellite Church of Christs, or by any Church, which doesn’t believe in Believers baptism by immersion and salvation by grace thru faith.
And, I wouldn’t be for any baptisms that Uncle Sammy did, in the back of the bar, after leading his fellow drinker to the Lord; or by Big Momma, who just led her 5 yr old to the Lord, and decided to go ahead and baptize her little boy in the pond behind the house; or by Rev. Freddy Freebird, who just leads them to the Lord, and baptizes them in the first pond, swimming pool, or public fountain that he can find.
David
Vol’s comment is as it was. That became the rub for many of us.
However, it must be stated; Some of the BoT of the IMB were nuts as a March hare and Packinghouse Rats. It is also true that flocks of those who opposed them were Wild Geese and just as nuts.
The whole ordeal of the IMB War became the Baptist French Revelation.
Volfan:
The problem with some Baptists relative to accepting various baptisms is that there is an inference that the person was has been previously been baptized both understands and agrees with whatever flavor of baptism that the other church practices.
In my case, I was baptized by immersion in a Christian Church (i.e. Disciples of Christ). I didn’t know the theological details of whether I was being baptized because I was joining the church vs. being baptized because I had become a Christian. I was a teenager at the time.
Later when I joined a Southern Baptist church I was baptized again. I though the reason was because I was joining the church. No one explained much about baptism either time I was baptized. I just thought that when you joined a church that you had to be baptized.
Only years later I found out that various churches have different understandings regarding baptism. My question now, looking back at this, is why should whatever incorrect view of baptism which is held by some church I went to previously be considered relative to me if (a) I didn’t understands that wrong theology and (b) didn’t consent to it.
Is there reverse osmosis at work such that if some church I attended had wrong theology that it would flow to me unawares?
In any case, I guess I have my bases covered because I have been baptized three times. One of those times was at birth at St. Matthias catholic church in Huntington Park CA. I have never attended a Catholic church but I guess I’m still a Catholic — just one who is in a backslidden condition.
Roger,
I can identify with your baptism journey. I was sprinkled by the Methodist as a lost boy. I later was immersed by a Baptist Church…in order to join the Church….and, was still lost. Later, I got baptized for real, after really being saved…..and, I got it right….getting baptized because I was saved.
Again Roger, I believe that the ordinance of baptism and the Lord’s Supper was given to the Church, a local body of Believers, and not to a single, individual person. Therefore, our baptism has to be acceptable tot he Church that you want to join, or to the mission board that you want to support you and send you to the mission field. Thus, I would most certainly ask people to be baptized(really baptized) if their baptism was done by a Church, which baptized for the remission of sins. Because, it’s what the Church believes that should be important, and not what an individual understands, or doesn’t understand, at the moment. Because, the ordinance was given to the Church….and, the baptism should be a Scriptural baptism. And, if the Church baptized you so that you could be saved, then that’s making a public statement about a works salvation. Our baptism should be a statement about our faith in Christ….a public statement that we were sincere, and really meant business with God, when we put our faith in Jesus, and in Jesus alone for our salvation.
David
David,
Do you believe that the Church is always a local body of believers?
John,
Of course, the universal Church is all the Believers all over the world. BUT, the universal Church is always seen in the visible, local body of Believers….in a local Church. There aren’t supposed to be any Lone Ranger Christians, out there, just doing thier own thing, however they want to do it. God made us to belong to a community of Believers called the Church. The NT is full of this teaching.
David
Stop being so reasonable, David: we’ll never get to 666 comments if you keep that up…
Greg,
🙂
David
Joel, et al,
Let’s not forget that many denominations that by their name ought to be Christian have now become apostate, and are no more a part of the true Church than the Mormons. It does not matter if they have a respectable name, such as Baptist, if they have thrown out the Bible and accept gay marriage, etc.
I think this is the balance that we are constantly trying to find in the SBC. We are a tribe of like-minded folks, but when we become tribal, superior, arrogant, judgmental – that is when it gets bad.
I really like this one, Joel. The guy who decided to post it here at Voices was brilliant.