Full Immersion

[Job8]

The Churches of Christ in Australia is not the same denomination as the Church of Christ USA. Churches of Christ in Australia is a denomination very much like Baptists in theology and does not promote baptismal regeneration. I am not associated with the Churches of Christ, but have preached in some CoC churches and know some CoC pastors.

From their website it appears that they are sound in their faith and doctrine. They hold to believer's baptism but not baptismal regeneration.

 

[OzSpen]

From their website it appears that they are sound in their faith and doctrine. They hold to believer's baptism but not baptismal regeneration.

That's correct, except in the State of Victoria. I have written an article exposing what the CoC did in that State in inviting Episcopalian heterodox ex-bishop, John Shelby Spong, to do a series of meetings.

See: John Shelby Spong and the Churches of Christ (Victoria, Australia) In Victoria, the CoC has become more liberal in theology.

There seems to be some connection between the CoC and The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the USA, which is infiltrated with liberalism.

Oz

 

[farout]

Hello fellow Baptists!

There is something I have been wondering recently.

A core doctrine of the Baptist faith is believer's baptism through full immersion, yet I have met some Baptists that are not as strict about it.

For example, I was baptized through full immersion but I also see pouring as a valid alternative.

John Bunyan is considered a Baptist by historians and he agree with full immersion as the valid mode of baptism, yet he also believed Baptists made an idol out of baptism and accepted Christians who were baptized differently.

How important is it for someone to baptized through full immersion? Do you accept paedobaptists or think they should be baptized again as believers through immersion?

Scripture teaches being immersed. So that should settle it! Right? At least I thought so. I can across a elderly woman in a hospital dyeing of pancreatic cancer. I was asked to please visit this woman who was soon to die. We talked and very soon death and Jesus Christ came naturally into our talk. I explained the Good News of Jesus Christ. After two visits she made Jesus Christ her Lord and Savior. She begged to be baptized, as she wanted to be a genuine follower of Christ. With Iv's and tubes and oxygen there was no way to be immersed! I told her that we simply could not immerse her. But I was willing to do a sprinkling as a symbol of baptism. She died shortly in less than a week, and in peace that she had done all she could as far as being baptized.

I do not think this was unacceptable in the eyes of Jesus Christ. I was able to give her rest in the Lord. I have never done this again, and hope I never have too. Do I feel comfortable about sprinkling, NO. If I were to run into this again would I do it again, most likely. As a solid core Born Again Conservative Southern Baptist I do not like going against my doctrinal teachings. What really is so very sad I had adults that were healthy that would not be immersed, but this poor woman would have crawled into a baptistery if she could have done so.

When I have baptized someone at the end of the baptismal service I say "Here is water, what hinders you from being Baptized? If you are saved and have not been baptized, what hinders you?

 

[actionsub]

That's correct, except in the State of Victoria. I have written an article exposing what the CoC did in that State in inviting Episcopalian heterodox ex-bishop, John Shelby Spong, to do a series of meetings.

See: John Shelby Spong and the Churches of Christ (Victoria, Australia) In Victoria, the CoC has become more liberal in theology.

There seems to be some connection between the CoC and The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) in the USA, which is infiltrated with liberalism.

Oz

There is. At one point, the CoC and the Disciples were one movement. They split over the use of musical instruments in worship services. In 1906, a CoC leader informed the US Census Bureau that they were henceforth to be counted separately from the Disciples.
However, the CoC is not to be held guilty by association of liberalism. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[OzSpen]

...

 

[OzSpen]

There is. At one point, the CoC and the Disciples were one movement. They split over the use of musical instruments in worship services. In 1906, a CoC leader informed the US Census Bureau that they were henceforth to be counted separately from the Disciples.
However, the CoC is not to be held guilty by association of liberalism. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

You are speaking of the Church of Christ USA.

I'm speaking of the Churches of Christ, Australia, which is not the same denomination. The USA Church of Christ has some churches in Australia like Bundaberg Targo Street Church of Christ. But it is not connected to the denomination associated with Twyford Street Church of Christ. The Targo Street Church of Christ does not have musical instruments in the church service. The other one does. I used to live in Bundaberg. It's my hometown. They are 2 separate denominations.

Oz

 

[actionsub]

You are speaking of the Church of Christ USA.

I'm speaking of the Churches of Christ, Australia, which is not the same denomination. The USA Church of Christ has some churches in Australia like Bundaberg Targo Street Church of Christ. But it is not connected to the denomination associated with Twyford Street Church of Christ. The Targo Street Church of Christ does not have musical instruments in the church service. The other one does. I used to live in Bundaberg. It's my hometown. They are 2 separate denominations.

Oz

OK. I wasn't sure to which Church of Christ you referred.

 

[Goodbook]

I heard that people from a presy church went to a baptist church to use their baptism pool and lots of families got baptised there because the presy church had no baptism pool in their church.

 

[actionsub]

I heard that people from a presy church went to a baptist church to use their baptism pool and lots of families got baptised there because the presy church had no baptism pool in their church.

We did this at the Methodist church too...until we got a choir director with a hot tub. The assistant pastor commandeered it to baptize my daughter and her friend, since both sets of parents insisted on immersion for the two girls.

 

[Job8]

I heard that people from a presy church went to a baptist church to use their baptism pool and lots of families got baptised there because the presy church had no baptism pool in their church.

That's called pooling your resources.

 

[OzSpen]

I heard that people from a presy church went to a baptist church to use their baptism pool and lots of families got baptised there because the presy church had no baptism pool in their church.

Presbyterian churches do not need a baptism pool as they use a baptismal font in the church to dab water on the forehead of the infant or adult. That's what happens in the Presbyterian church I attend here in Brisbane.

 

[DeaconDean]

Presbyterian churches do not need a baptism pool as they use a baptismal font in the church to dab water on the forehead of the infant or adult. That's what happens in the Presbyterian church I attend here in Brisbane.

My mother, was born and raised in a Presbyterian church and she confirmed that "sprinkling" was the method she was "baptized" in.

However, when she met and married my father, she started attending a Baptist church and subsequently was baptized by full immersion.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

[…] Even Baptists do not really teach properly what Scripture reveals about baptism.

Hmm… My Baptist church does not seem to be in accordance with what you claim that Baptists teach. But I think you are misquoting some verses anyway.

1. Water baptism must be an integral part of the Gospel (Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:16,16).

Baptism is relevant in the Gospel, but much more relevant than that is salvation itself, which is not achieved through baptism. The verses you mentioned do not talk about baptism included in the Gospel. In several passages throughout the New Testament, baptism is not mentioned when discussing the Gospel, as in Acts of the Apostles 2:14-36 and in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.

2. According to the New Testament baptism is to be administered immediately after conversion (Acts 8:35-40), not days, weeks, months, or years later.

The Bible doesn't say that. It was simply their custom to do it, but nowhere does it say that it must be administered so quickly.

3. Any mature male Christian can baptize a new convert (Acts 9:10-19), not necessarily an ordained minister.

We do not deny that. However, since the pastor is the leader of the church, we do prefer that, if possible, he will be the one to baptise.

4. Water baptism is a command, not an option (Acts 10:44-48).

We do not deny that.

5. There is no extensive preparation or classes required prior to baptism (Acts 16:30-34).

We do not deny that; however, we feel that they are useful in deepening study about the basic doctrines of the Bible, in order to ensure that those who are going to be baptised are really ready.

6. Water baptism is a witness to the world that the a sinner has repented and been converted (Acts 2:38-41; 3:19).

We do not deny that.

7. Water baptism does not give access to local church member, but symbolically indicates membership in the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

The mentioned verse does not talk about local church membership. In fact, the Bible never talks about local church membership; we have simply created that concept — for legal purposes, for general assemblies organised for the discussion of relevant matters, and in order to facilitate identification of affiliation with a certain church — and have defined it to include all members baptised in a church or who have been transferred from another church of the same denomination where they have been baptised. The Bible never speaks against anything of the sort; it is a modern procedure which has nothing wrong with it.

8. Water baptism teaches the new believer that God is three Divine Persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- and it is in His name that the believer is baptized (Mt 28:19).

We do not deny that.

 

[Job8]

But I think you are misquoting some verses anyway.

Why is it that when some error is brought to light, then the Scriptures are being *misquoted*, or *twisted*, or *taken out of context*? Since I have studied the subject in depth, nothing has been misquoted. If you believe that is true, then prove it, or agree that even many Baptists don't teach about (and practice) water baptism according to Scripture.

The mentioned verse does not talk about local church membership.

Here's a good example of misreading what was stated. The majority of Baptist churches regard water baptism as something which gives a new convert access to membership in their local church. I did not say that the Scripture given teaches that. What I did say is that that Scripture establishes that every believer is *baptized* into the Body of Christ (which goes way beyond the local assembly). So the true teaching would be to explain this to the new convert, and then let him/her know that they are welcome to be in full fellowship in that local church, but not through their water baptism.

I could go on to refute many of your comments, but I will refrain from that. It is up to every Christian to not only read those Scriptures, but also meditate on them in the light of the entire doctrine.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Why is it that when some error is brought to light, then the Scriptures are being *misquoted*, or *twisted*, or *taken out of context*?

For the same reason that we would both agree that, for example, when the ‘error’ of the Trinity is ‘brought to light’ by Jehovah's Witnesses, then the Scriptures are being misquoted, twisted and taken out of context. Insisting that you have ‘brought an error to light’ does not actually make it an error that you have brought to light. That is called the Circular Reasoning Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning.

Since I have studied the subject in depth, nothing has been misquoted.

Yes, it has; evidently, your study was not sufficiently deep. By the way, you are utilising a fallacious form of the argument from authority: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#General.

If you believe that is true, then prove it, or agree that even many Baptists don't teach about (and practice) water baptism according to Scripture.

I have proven it, but you have disregarded most of my proofs.

Here's a good example of misreading what was stated. The majority of Baptist churches regard water baptism as something which gives a new convert access to membership in their local church.

Of course they do! They have defined ‘local church membership’ to be the group of all persons baptised in that church! But, again, what is wrong with that?

I did not say that the Scripture given teaches that. What I did say is that that Scripture establishes that every believer is *baptized* into the Body of Christ (which goes way beyond the local assembly).

Er… and… how exactly does that mean that you cannot join your local church upon baptism as well? Wow! I mean, you must love to use informal fallacies, right? It is the third one already! This time, you have used the False Dilemma Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma.

So the true teaching would be to explain this to the new convert, and then let him/her know that they are welcome to be in full fellowship in that local church, but not through their water baptism.

Any non-Christian is welcome to be ‘in full fellowship’ with my church. However, we are not discussing fellowship with a local church, but rather membership in a local church, which — I have already said — we have defined to be achieved through baptism. And that is the fourth fallacy — the Straw Man Fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man.

I could go on to refute many of your comments, but I will refrain from that. It is up to every Christian to not only read those Scriptures, but also meditate on them in the light of the entire doctrine.

If you are able to, and yet refuse to, refute my incorrect arguments, I will assume that they are correct. Prove to me that they are incorrect, if indeed they are.

 

[classicalhero]

1. Water baptism must be an integral part of the Gospel (Mt 28:18-20; Mk 16:16,16).

2. According to the New Testament baptism is to be administered immediately after conversion (Acts 8:35-40), not days, weeks, months, or years later.

3. Any mature male Christian can baptize a new convert (Acts 9:10-19), not necessarily an ordained minister.

4. Water baptism is a command, not an option (Acts 10:44-48).

5. There is no extensive preparation or classes required prior to baptism (Acts 16:30-34).

6. Water baptism is a witness to the world that the a sinner has repented and been converted (Acts 2:38-41; 3:19).

7. Water baptism does not give access to local church member, but symbolically indicates membership in the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

8. Water baptism teaches the new believer that God is three Divine Persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- and it is in His name that the believer is baptized (Mt 28:19).

1. It's not a integral part of the Gospel since the Gospel is about Jesus' death burial and resurrection. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. Nowhere in that passage is baptism is used. What Baptism is a symbol of the Gospel just like how a wedding ring is a symbol of a marriage, but not the marriage itself. You have a ring to signify you are marriaged just like that our baptism is there to signify we have believed on Jesus as our personal saviour.

2. The Bible doesn't say that, but generally most believers where willing to immediately show their faith by getting baptised.

3. Ananias doesn't seem to be a new convert by how he reacted to the situation. It's a bit of a stretch to say what you are saying.

4. The person doing the commanding is Peter. He was telling that to show their faith to get baptised, which is just what the Jews had done before showing there is now no difference between Jews and Gentiles.

5. Agreed. But as this symbol is an important sign of your faith it is important to understand the significance of it. Which is why when I got baptised at 10 I understood the importance of it, but my baptism was four years after I got saved as a young boy.

6. Agreed.

7. Actually if you read Acts 2:41, they were Baptised then they were added to the fellowship.

8.Agreed.

 

[Job8]

It's not a integral part of the Gospel since the Gospel is about Jesus' death burial and resurrection.

Did Peter preach the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost? Well baptism is an integral part of his message (Acts 2:32-38), and over 3,000 souls were baptized that day. Some people just like to argue with Scripture.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. [RESURRECTION]

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. [EXALTATION]

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [AUTHORITY]

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. [FUTURE COMING]

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. [CRUCIFIXION AND LORDSHIP]

37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? [CONVICTION]

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [WATER BAPTISM]

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Did Peter preach the Gospel on the Day of Pentecost? Well baptism is an integral part of his message (Acts 2:32-38), and over 3,000 souls were baptized that day. Some people just like to argue with Scripture.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. [RESURRECTION]

33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. [EXALTATION]

34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, [AUTHORITY]

35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. [FUTURE COMING]

36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. [CRUCIFIXION AND LORDSHIP]

37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? [CONVICTION]

38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. [WATER BAPTISM]

He talked about baptism AFTER presenting the Gospel. His presentation of the Gospel ended when he stopped talking, that is, in verse 36.

 

[DeaconDean]

2. According to the New Testament baptism is to be administered immediately after conversion (Acts 8:35-40), not days, weeks, months, or years later.

Well tell me something, if you take such a hard line stance on this, then why did Paul not baptize?

"For Christ sent me not to baptize," -1 Cor. 1:17 (KJV)

While it may not have his primary duty to baptize but to evangelize, he may have left this duty to those who traveled with him. It is interesting that other than the testimony about Timothy, Paul says virtually nothing else about baptism in the rest of his epistles.

Hum...

How long after Paul's conversion did he get baptized?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I wonder, if it is possible for a person to confess, and be baptized immediately, follow the scriptures and yet not be saved?

God Bless

Till all are one.