IMB & Baptism on True Baptism

seekingpurity047 · #21 22nd August 2006, 11:14 AM

I am a member at a Baptist Church now, but I was baptized at a non-denominational charismatic church by immersion. The Baptists saw it as valid.

Even though I may be a baptist, I'm not that extreme when it comes to baptism. However, I do believe that the Roman Catholic baptism to be invalid (I guess the same would go with eastern orthodox) seeing as most of that has turned into family tradition rather than raising them in the faith.

However, I'm still trying to figure out what my position on baptism is. I'm pretty open to infant baptism now, as I'm open to the Baptist position. I'd have to say that I agree with John Piper on his motion to allow paedobaptists to be members without having to be re-baptized (I'm assuming that these people were probably of the presbyterian church or christian reformed or the like). Of course, I would support the re-baptism of a Roman Catholic person who was saved later on in life and not raised in a christian home.

To the glory of God,

Randy

seekingpurity047 · #22 22nd August 2006, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by GrinningDwarf

Nope. Assemblies of God is definitely Trinitarian. I used to be one! You're thinking of the Oneness Pentecostals. They go by that name, and there are many others, so confusion is understandable.

I guess I would be another. I always thought paedo-baptism was strictly a Catholic thing. It's only in the last few years that I've been exposed to covenant theology. I'm not 'converted' to paedo-baptism (yet, maybe!) but I'm no longer opposed, either.

Seems like we are in the same boat, GD.

Imblessed · #23 23rd August 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by seekingpurity047

I am a member at a Baptist Church now, but I was baptized at a non-denominational charismatic church by immersion. The Baptists saw it as valid.

Even though I may be a baptist, I'm not that extreme when it comes to baptism. However, I do believe that the Roman Catholic baptism to be invalid (I guess the same would go with eastern orthodox) seeing as most of that has turned into family tradition rather than raising them in the faith.

However, I'm still trying to figure out what my position on baptism is. I'm pretty open to infant baptism now, as I'm open to the Baptist position. I'd have to say that I agree with John Piper on his motion to allow paedobaptists to be members without having to be re-baptized (I'm assuming that these people were probably of the presbyterian church or christian reformed or the like). Of course, I would support the re-baptism of a Roman Catholic person who was saved later on in life and not raised in a christian home.

To the glory of God,

Randy

I'm still questioning the validity of the RCC infant baptism myself. I would encourage a re-baptism if that person had been baptised as an infant but not raised in a christian home(I know there are a lot of non-practicing catholics out there who baptise their kids because "they're supposed to" but never really step foot in a catholic church after that.....) However, if the person had been raised in the Catholic faith--going to mass regularly and all that, but then became Baptist, I'm not sure that a re-baptism is necessary, if that same person is ok with it. I know there are quite a few former Catholics in our church, and most of them have elected to be baptised as believers. I guess I'd have to say it's a personal decision.

Bernergirl · #24 23rd August 2006, 11:11 AM

In my baptism class, there was a number of people who were baptized as infants, but felt that they had accepted Jesus much later in life and wanted to do a believer's baptism now that they really were believers. The instructor/elder himself had been baptized at age seven (and almost drowned in the process because the lady who baptized him didn't know just how to do it - we had a pre-baptism instruction to make sure that didn't happen for any of us...

) and hadn't really known what he was doing. He stressed the point, however, that once you are a believer and have been baptized, that's it. Baptism is a one time only thing. Infant baptism, etc. he called "an unbeliever getting wet."

My cousin says her BF has been baptized three times.

arunma · #25 23rd August 2006, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by seekingpurity047

I am a member at a Baptist Church now, but I was baptized at a non-denominational charismatic church by immersion. The Baptists saw it as valid.

Even though I may be a baptist, I'm not that extreme when it comes to baptism. However, I do believe that the Roman Catholic baptism to be invalid (I guess the same would go with eastern orthodox) seeing as most of that has turned into family tradition rather than raising them in the faith.

However, I'm still trying to figure out what my position on baptism is. I'm pretty open to infant baptism now, as I'm open to the Baptist position. I'd have to say that I agree with John Piper on his motion to allow paedobaptists to be members without having to be re-baptized (I'm assuming that these people were probably of the presbyterian church or christian reformed or the like). Of course, I would support the re-baptism of a Roman Catholic person who was saved later on in life and not raised in a christian home.

This brings up an interesting issue. What about a Roman Catholic or Orthodox who was infant baptized and raised in a religious home? Would you say that this baptism is valid?

Anyway, I agree with you that any infant baptism that isn't followed up by genuine Christian upbringing is meaningless. It isn't just the Catholics, either. Here in Minnesota, Lutheranism is ubiquitous. But unfortunately, it has also become more culture than religion. A lot of people are baptized in the Lutheran church by semi-believing parents, and then not raised as Christians. I would consider such a baptism to be likewise worthless.

Cajun Huguenot · #26 23rd August 2006, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by arunma

This brings up an interesting issue. What about a Roman Catholic or Orthodox who was infant baptized and raised in a religious home? Would you say that this baptism is valid?

This is a good question. A number of my fellow Reformed friends and brethren here South Louisiana were baptised in the Roman Catholic Church. (As was Calvin, Luther and all the Reformers) My best friend, a number of members at Bethel PCA church in Lake Charles, La. (myself included) were baptised in the Roman Catholic Church.

I would NOT submit to re-baptism, because it would be a denial of my baptism.

Originally Posted by arunma

Anyway, I agree with you that any infant baptism that isn't followed up by genuine Christian upbringing is meaningless. It isn't just the Catholics, either. Here in Minnesota, Lutheranism is ubiquitous. But unfortunately, it has also become more culture than religion. A lot of people are baptized in the Lutheran church by semi-believing parents, and then not raised as Christians. I would consider such a baptism to be likewise worthless.

Were Old Covenant Jew's, who were brought in homes that were only margianly Jewish, still recognised as Israelites? Outwardly yes.

I believe baptism is a covenant action that changes ones status forever. It is like marriage. If you get married, whether your "really meant it" or not does not matter, you still remain marrried.

Before the covenant ritual of marriage you are single; after the ceremony you are married and will never be single again. You may be divorced or widowed, but you will never be "single" again.

Baptism is a serious covenant act.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Behe's Boy · #27 23rd August 2006, 03:26 PM

Okay - I may be going out on a limb here (thats where the fruit is though) - but I stand with the Free Presbyterian Church (www.freepres.org/main.asp) on this issue. From their articles of faith:

"Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration."

Bernergirl · #28 23rd August 2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by arunma

But unfortunately, it has also become more culture than religion. A lot of people are baptized in the Lutheran church by semi-believing parents, and then not raised as Christians. I would consider such a baptism to be likewise worthless.

I'd have to say you hit the nail on the head there. For example, my aunt was baptized as an infant in the Lutheran church, then raised in a churchless home by an athiest father and a... well I don't know what Grandma considers herself. My aunt is now pagan.

Cajun Huguenot · #29 23rd August 2006, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by Behe's Boy

Okay - I may be going out on a limb here (thats where the fruit is though) - but I stand with the Free Presbyterian Church (www.freepres.org/main.asp) on this issue. From their articles of faith:

"Baptism -- The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, under Christ the Great King and Head of the Church, Realizing that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the Body of Christ when that Body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired assaults of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which course to adopt on these controverted issues, each member giving due honor in love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration."

Hey Behe,

That is a very interesting statement. I likely agree with them. I do believe that the Church needs to say what it believes to be biblical about baptism, but I do not believe that lay members must hold to that position (though they must have a trinitarian baptism) to be a member.

At Bethel, where I came to my understanding of Reformed Christianity, all officers had to agree to the Westminster Standards to be ordained to office, but this was not required of Church members.

We are Presbyterian, but it is Christ's Church and not our church. We can not restrict membership in Christ Church that He did not place there. To be an officer you must not only repent and believe on Christ Jesus, but you must also be sound in doctrine. Therefore officers, have agree with the correctness of paedobaptism, but you do not need to adhere to this view to be a member and come under the authority of the elders.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

Behe's Boy · #30 23rd August 2006, 03:49 PM

Hiya Kenneth -

Yea - it is interesting indeed. They are a seperate denomination than say the PCA or PCUSA - so I'm fairly certain that this would not affect positions within church leadership...