| Semper Reformanda - Reformed The forum for Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterian and other similar denominations. |
 | | 
13th August 2006, 06:54 PM
|  | Ron Paul for President!
28    
 | | Join Date: 30th October 2004
Posts: 5,646
Blessings: 84,893
Reps: 11,903 (power: 24) | | | IMB & Baptism on True Baptism
The SBC International Mission Board requires it's candidates to have been baptized (via immersion) by a church which believe's in eternal security. Why? I am not entirely sure yet (hopefully one of you can inform me).
Do you think Baptism done by any other group, say Assemblies of God is valid? Why or why not?
__________________ Formerly known as "The Lord's Envoy"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CF is an Ecumenical Nightmare |
13th August 2006, 08:42 PM
| | Flaming Calvinist
27 
| | Join Date: 29th April 2004
Posts: 15,107
Blessings: 138,902
Reps: 4,248,754,869 (power: 4,248,777) | | Originally Posted by The Lord's Envoy The SBC International Mission Board requires it's candidates to have been baptized (via immersion) by a church which believe's in eternal security. Why? I am not entirely sure yet (hopefully one of you can inform me).
Do you think Baptism done by any other group, say Assemblies of God is valid? Why or why not?
An interesting issue, Mark. In fact, this has been an issue in the church for a long time. At the Nicene Council, one of the smaller issues for discussion was that of the validity of baptisms performed by heretics. Not that Assemblies of God is heretical, but the controversy is quite similar.
Although I believe in credobaptism (by immersion), I'm not too much of a legalist on this one. In fact, there are a few staff persons on the Campus Outreach at my church who are from a Presbyterian church, and are therefore paedobaptist. Unfortunately these people can't become members unless they compromise on their beliefs, and in fact our church recently tried to amend our rules so as to remove adult baptism as a membership requirement (we ended up not doing so, since the Baptist General Conference didn't like the idea).
Anyway, I do think that baptisms performed in other churches are valid. I believe that a believer's baptism by immersion is the most ideal, but I suppose that an infant baptism followed up by a confirmation fulfills the same ideals as credobaptism.
__________________
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18) |
14th August 2006, 12:00 AM
|  | Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
42  
| | Join Date: 23rd March 2003 Location: Texas
Posts: 6,468
Blessings: 171,527
Reps: 172,701 (power: 187) | | Originally Posted by arunma Although I believe in credobaptism (by immersion), I'm not too much of a legalist on this one. In fact, there are a few staff persons on the Campus Outreach at my church who are from a Presbyterian church, and are therefore paedobaptist. Unfortunately these people can't become members unless they compromise on their beliefs, and in fact our church recently tried to amend our rules so as to remove adult baptism as a membership requirement (we ended up not doing so, since the Baptist General Conference didn't like the idea).
The reason why I have never joined a Baptist church, even though there were a few I liked and attended. Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
14th August 2006, 12:03 AM
| | Flaming Calvinist
27
| | Join Date: 29th April 2004
Posts: 15,107
Blessings: 138,902
Reps: 4,248,754,869 (power: 4,248,777) | | | Oh dear, I'm troubled by my own words from my last post: "I'm not too much of a legalist on this one." I like to think that I'm not a legalist on any issue (at least I hope so). But sorry for the confusion.
__________________
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (John 3:18) |
14th August 2006, 12:09 AM
| | Voted best Semper Reformada signature ~ 2007
42
| | Join Date: 23rd March 2003 Location: Texas
Posts: 6,468
Blessings: 171,527
Reps: 172,701 (power: 187) | | I was more commenting on the general attitude of Baptist churches over anything you said. I am, heartened, BTW, of Piper's recent stand on this issue. Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....
Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
14th August 2006, 12:22 AM
|  | Old School Presbyterian
| | Join Date: 16th December 2003
Posts: 1,147
Blessings: 1,058,006 My Mood 
Reps: 33,340,060,490,694,832 (power: 33,340,060,490,704) | | | I believe the OPC accepts any Christian, trinitarian baptism performed by an ordained minister. |
17th August 2006, 05:21 PM
|  | Monkey Boy
39 
| | Join Date: 5th February 2002 Location: Ft. Worth, tx
Posts: 4,903
Blessings: 61,713
Reps: 1,057 (power: 16) | | | This is a hard question. If a credobaptist does not reject other forms of baptism then many would say that the person is making baptism not very important. But then how can one deny that Augustine, CAlvin, and many other great Christians were not baptized? And how can Baptists be a part of groups such as the evangelical theological society with padeobaptists and not also be demonstrating that baptism is not important? (By their own standards)
I do not know the answer to this one really. I do know that Piper is not really being a Baptist by allowing padeobaptists to be church members. He may be right or wrong but it is not baptist. And he should not claim to be one and have that as a policy.
__________________
Through the power of the Holy Spirit I am resolved to fully know Christ and to serve Him as Lord and Master of my life until I am with my Father in heaven which will be my gain.
To live is Christ and to die is gain. Phil. 2:10
That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Phil 3:10-11 |
17th August 2006, 05:24 PM
|  | Cajun's for Christ
51  
| | Join Date: 18th August 2004 Location: Cajun Country
Posts: 3,074
Blessings: 6,665 My Mood 
Reps: 11,554,072,780,599,058 (power: 11,554,072,780,610) | | Originally Posted by The Lord's Envoy The SBC International Mission Board requires it's candidates to have been baptized (via immersion) by a church which believe's in eternal security. Why? I am not entirely sure yet (hopefully one of you can inform me).
Do you think Baptism done by any other group, say Assemblies of God is valid? Why or why not?
This is a long standing poliy of the SBC. Implicitly they are declaring that those not baptised by them are not really baptised. My own father is a deacon in the SBC and I have many friends there, but this is one of their positions of the SBC that I have big problems with.
I read sometime back (after being informed about it here on SR) that the church that John Piper pastors now accepts the baptisms of paedobaptists.
All my children were baptised as infants and I would strongly advise them never to agree to re-baptism, because by doing so they deny the legitimacy of their earlier baptism.
IF they ever decide that the can no longer hold to paedobaptism, then they would need to under go believers baptism, but it would be a gross act to submit to rebaptism just to join a particular congregation in the SBC or any other denomination.
Coram Deo,
Kenith
__________________ Christianity is a pro-life faith. |
17th August 2006, 05:47 PM
| | Ron Paul for President!
28
| | Join Date: 30th October 2004
Posts: 5,646
Blessings: 84,893
Reps: 11,903 (power: 24) | | | I personally do not think an infant baptism is valid, but this isn't the thrust of where I am going. I am wondering if a proper baptism (be it paedo or credo) is valid if it is done by a church who has a skewed view of the gospel by rejecting Eternal Security and what the implications are for that, if any? What do you guys think?
__________________ Formerly known as "The Lord's Envoy"
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
CF is an Ecumenical Nightmare |
17th August 2006, 06:11 PM
| | Cajun's for Christ
51
| | Join Date: 18th August 2004 Location: Cajun Country
Posts: 3,074
Blessings: 6,665 My Mood
Reps: 11,554,072,780,599,058 (power: 11,554,072,780,610) | | Originally Posted by The Lord's Envoy I personally do not think an infant baptism is valid, but this isn't the thrust of where I am going. I am wondering if a proper baptism (be it paedo or credo) is valid if it is done by a church who has a skewed view of the gospel by rejecting Eternal Security and what the implications are for that, if any? What do you guys think?
I don't think the SBC standard is valid. I attended SBC churches for many years (before coming into the Reformed faith). I believed then, and do now, that their position was far too rigid. They would not accept the baptism of their fellow credo-baptist who were not Baptist. Again that is an implicit denial that these other denominations are truly Christian.
I have great respect far my brothers and sisters in the SBC. They are a solid Christian denomination (even though I disagree with them on many points), but (IMHO) they need to lighten up on this issue.
Coram Deo,
Kenith
__________________ Christianity is a pro-life faith. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
