baptisim

[jubilaki]

hey guys, i grew up in a reformed church and i was baptised as a child and now we have resently moved to a baptist church and i was wondering what you guys think about haveting to be baptised again. at the moment my perents can't become members because they havent been baptised all into the water. what do you guys think about this?

 

[R.J.S]

hey guys, i grew up in a reformed church and i was baptised as a child and now we have resently moved to a baptist church and i was wondering what you guys think about haveting to be baptised again. at the moment my perents can't become members because they havent been baptised all into the water. what do you guys think about this?

Infant baptism counts for nothing but I see no reason to forbid adults from fellowship based upon the form of baptism.

 

[Matthan]

Remember that it is baptism by the Holy Spirit that is true Christian Baptism, and not baptism by water of any kind. Do you (and your parents) love and believe in Jesus as the Son of God? If you do, have you ever gone off to some private place, got down on your knees, and had a heart-felt talk with Him? Have you told Him you love Him, and know He is God Almighty? Have you told Him you are a sinner, and you want to repent of your sinful ways to become His alone? Have you ever asked Jesus to come into your heart and become your Savior and Master?

If you have done these things, then you belong to Him. Baptism by water is symbolic of His sacrifice for all of us who truly want to be His and follow Him. It is a public declaration of your belief in His death (submerging), and resurrection (coming up out of the water). In many congregations, it is also a requirement for membership into that particular Church congregation. It contains no salvific power of its ownself, but instead serves to demonstrate your love, devotion, and willingness to follow Him.

Hope this helps.

Matthan <J><

 

[MbiaJc]

hey guys, i grew up in a reformed church and i was baptised as a child and now we have resently moved to a baptist church and i was wondering what you guys think about haveting to be baptised again. at the moment my perents can't become members because they havent been baptised all into the water. what do you guys think about this?

All Baptist Churches I know require water baptism(submersion)before you can become a member. Some Southern Baptist Churches require rebaptism if you come from some sects of Baptist.

 

[jubilaki]

ok then that explains some stuff, thanks

 

[Ave Maria]

Infant baptism counts for nothing but I see no reason to forbid adults from fellowship based upon the form of baptism.

Not to turn this into a debate or anything but I do feel that infant baptism has somewhat of a significance if only it is welcoming the child into the church. However, I know most Baptists believe in believer's baptism so I suppose one would have to be baptised as an adult even if they were already baptised as a child.

 

[jubilaki]

yeah thats the thing my perents and my uncle and aunty all have come over from the reformed church to the baptist church and they have been baptised as a child and then done there perfeshion of faith as a believer, and so now they can't become a member of the baptist church because they don't feel that they have to be baptised a second time. I have herd so many conversations about this topic but everyone's view is so diferent, i personly don't think that they should have to be baptised again, and i know that some baptist churches are makeing exceptions.

 

[rural_preacher]

The Biblical model is belief first, then baptism. Infant baptism is not found in Scripture. Baptist churches are simply following the instructions and examples provided in Scripture.

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:41

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 16:31-33

And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.

Acts 8:35-38

Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

--

 

[jubilaki]

thanks, is there any scripture that the refomed churches would be following under infant baptism

 

[Lockheed]

thanks, is there any scripture that the refomed churches would be following under infant baptism

Well there are varying brands of "Reformed". Reformed Baptists (which I am) do not believe in infant baptism. That said, the Reformed groups who do believe in infant baptism base it primarily on Baptism's covenantal similarity and connection to circumcision.

Col 2:11-12

and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

​

They view the sign and seal of the New Covenant to be baptism, whereas the sign and seal of the Old Covenant (and the Abrahamic covenant) to be circumcision. Since circumcision was given to infants, they believe that this is warrant to give children the sign of the New Covenant.


Some also view baptism as a "means of grace" by which God communicates His gracious love and care for the infant of a believer and by which God can save the infant through the work of the Spirit. They may also view it as a 'visible representation of the Gospel' by which an infant can believe upon Christ through the supernatural work of the Spirit. Either way the "Reformed" (Covenantal/Calvinists) view baptism as a means by which God communicates grace to an individual. The best comparison in Scripture would be the preaching of the Gospel, it is the gracious means by which God 'enables' a person to believe and thus be saved, likewise some view baptism as a gracious means by which God regenerates individuals either in infancy or whenever the Spirit desires.

They base this on verses wherein Christ is shown as being kind to children and promises of God made to children of believers, be it in the old or new testaments.

 

[rural_preacher]

However, I believe that such a view ignores the clear example provided in God's Word. Baptism always followed repentence and belief.

In fact, baptism (immersion) pre-dates Christianity in the Jewish community. It was used as a means of publicly declaring repentence and also conversion to Judiasm. Going under the water symbolized dying to the old way of living; coming up out of the water symbolized new life. We can see this in John's baptism...a baptism of repentence. The Jewish people understood what he was doing because that type of baptism was commonly practiced.

Jesus instituted baptism for those who are born again by the power of the Holy Spirit through faith in Him because it so perfectly represents His death, burial and resurrection.

When one is baptized, they are publicly identifying with Jesus and their new life in Him. This identification is simply not accomplished by sprinkling or pouring...only immersion accomplishes the appropriate picture. And only doing so after one has been born again by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

Infant baptism is simply not the same as the teaching and example of the New Testament.

By the way, baptists are not the only ones who hold to this view and practice. Many other Christian groups practice believer's baptism (immersion). For example, the Assemblies of God.


--

 

[jubilaki]

thanks guys this is great, i'm finaly starting to really understand the diferences. I always felt as though infant baptisim was the way because i was baptised as an infant but now reeding all this I understand each veiws and think that imerstion baptisim is the right way to go

 

[Lockheed]

However, I believe that such a view ignores the clear example provided in God's Word. Baptism always followed repentence and belief.[/quote[

I agree.

[quote[In fact, baptism (immersion) pre-dates Christianity in the Jewish community. It was used as a means of publicly declaring repentence and also conversion to Judiasm. Going under the water symbolized dying to the old way of living; coming up out of the water symbolized new life. We can see this in John's baptism...a baptism of repentence. The Jewish people understood what he was doing because that type of baptism was commonly practiced.

However, paedobaptists would be quick to note that historical documents show that infants were included in pre-christianian Jewish baptism rites.

Jesus instituted baptism for those who are born again by the power of the Holy Spirit through faith in Him because it so perfectly represents His death, burial and resurrection.

Here I would disagree, baptism was instutited for those who profess faith in Christ. One's being born-again is not something someone does (by faith) it is an act of God. Just as we were born the first time, with no help of our own, our second-birth is by the power of God, not in response to something we do, but so that we can even see the kingdom of God. Our response then is to have faith. (John 3:3)

Thus, regeneration occurs first and faith follows. Thus baptism TRULY does represent death, burial and resurrection... its something that comes completely from God, not as a result of works, but by His grace alone.

By the way, baptists are not the only ones who hold to this view and practice. Many other Christian groups practice believer's baptism (immersion). For example, the Assemblies of God.
--

Just a note, immersion is not the only means of baptism operated on believers. While I disagree with the other modes, I don't believe the mode is as important as the timing, given special circumstances.

In antiquity people were immersed three times, once for the Father, Son and Spirit. This practice was ceased because some cultic groups had taken that form of Baptism and the church (at that time the Catholic church) decided not to do it that way any more. Eventually sprinkling became the normative mode in the Roman Catholic church and the Reformed churches that came out of her. They base sprinkling on the Biblical examples where blood or water is sprinkled on the altar, or on the people as a means of cleansing. (Heb 9,:21, 10:22, 12:24, 1 Pe 1:2)

I don't find the arguments convincing however, given that John the Baptist, who practiced a forerunner of Christian baptism baptized in a river, and the example of the Ethiopian baptized by Phillip seemingly in a pool of water.

In the Eastern church baptism was by triune affusion (where water is poured over the head). I don't know the history of the Anabaptists sects and their mode of baptism but immersion has been proven through archeological finds to have been practiced from antiquity, as has the other modes. I believe that all three modes (immersion, sprinkling and affusion) have been occuring for a long time.

As to "believers baptism", all churches practice it when it comes to newly believing adults. Yet I find this amusing since one of the 'proof texts' often used by paedobaptists is:

Act 2:39 "For the promise is for you and your children...
​

...they nearly always leave off the rest of the verse...

and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself."
​

...the focus is not "you and your children" but "as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself." To be consistent, paedobaptists using this verse would need to baptize everyone they encounter.

 

[rural_preacher]

Jesus instituted baptism for those who are born again by the power of the Holy Spirit through faith in Him because it so perfectly represents His death, burial and resurrection.

Here I would disagree, baptism was instutited for those who profess faith in Christ. One's being born-again is not something someone does (by faith) it is an act of God. Just as we were born the first time, with no help of our own, our second-birth is by the power of God, not in response to something we do, but so that we can even see the kingdom of God. Our response then is to have faith. (John 3:3)

Wherein is your disagreement? I did not say that salvation comes by faith. I said that it is by the power of the HS through faith. That is how it is stated in Ephesians 2..."for by grace are ye saved through faith"...

Indeed, salvation is entirely a work of God.

It seems to me that you are intentionally picking at words in an attempt to make me appear as though I am saying something I'm not just so you can argue the point. My desire here (in CF) is not to debate but to edify, encourage and instruct.


--

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

there is no reason to become members unless they want to become more involved in leadership and such activities that deal with central church issues. I'm quaker so it really isnt a issue with me because we dont require it anyways. Its funny we dont have to be water baptized to join The Church but do to join a church. My sister had the same issue and finally decided to get water baptized so she could become more invovled. It was or is more about you agreeing with the church doctrine then anything. Just showing them you agree with what they teach.

 

[Lockheed]

Wherein is your disagreement? I did not say that salvation comes by faith. I said that it is by the power of the HS through faith. That is how it is stated in Ephesians 2..."for by grace are ye saved through faith"...

Indeed, salvation is entirely a work of God.

It seems to me that you are intentionally picking at words in an attempt to make me appear as though I am saying something I'm not just so you can argue the point. My desire here (in CF) is not to debate but to edify, encourage and instruct.


--

Just making a deliniation between being born again as a result of faith and having faith as a result of being born again. It is evident from our posts that we're in agreement on much.

BTW, I re-read what you wrote, and found that I misread what you wrote the fisrt time. Please forgive me!

 

[Lockheed]

W Jay Schroder,

What's your take on 'rebaptism', that is baptizing again those who were baptized as infants in a Protestant denomination, the Roman Catholic Church or a cult?

 

[W Jay Schroeder]

W Jay Schroder,

What's your take on 'rebaptism', that is baptizing again those who were baptized as infants in a Protestant denomination, the Roman Catholic Church or a cult?

Well i dont see the point of redoing it if it is from a different denom as long as the two denom have the same ideas of what it is for. from a cult i would say yes, only for the Churches sake to let them no that the person has agreed to their ideas. But in any case water baptism to me does not show what the person feels or thinks in their heart or mind so i do not put any creedance to it at all. If a person was to telll me they were water baptized it would not make me think more highly or lowly of them. how they live their lives is their Badge of Faith to God. As you know i am Quaker and we do not put any emphesis on ordanances or sacrements. We tend to just live by the Spirit of christ and let our actions determine for others what we believe. I tend to just let the denom figure out all the ordanance stuff out. I think churches or denomination go a little over board on some of there creeds and such and it becomes divisive to the CHURCH. Of course i think Qaukers tend to be a little liberal because they do not have many rules or creeds. It makes you need to check yourself and what your doing with scripture and prayer a little more often, BUT i dont think that is bad at all. It might be a bit easier for us to go astray if not careful and have others to hold you accountable. Your friends around you should do this instead of the church, or at least leaving it all up to the church.

 

[jubilaki]

ok i have another question, today we had 7 people baptised at church (imersion) and 6 of them were youth from the church and then the other one is from sunday school, shes only like 10 or 11, do you think that this is too young to make a choise to live all your life for the lord?

 

[RED that's ME]

ok i have another question, today we had 7 people baptised at church (imersion) and 6 of them were youth from the church and then the other one is from sunday school, shes only like 10 or 11, do you think that this is too young to make a choise to live all your life for the lord?

10 is not to young to make a decision to live for Christ. I was 5 years old when I personally made Jesus my Savior and Lord.

Mainstream Baptists don't use the term "rebaptized" we consider there's only one true water baptism after making a decision for Christ. Water baptism is for showing publically that you have personally have decided to make Jesus your Savior and Lord and follower of Christ. Baptists view any other types of baptism other than the first step in obedience as "getting wet" nothing more. Water Baptism is a first step for a believer to follow in obedience to God.