Baptists not believing in Baptism?

[JM]

Can a Christian be a Baptist and not believe in Baptism (or the Lord's Supper for that matter)?

 

[SumTinWong]

That is a pretty good question. I would further it and say can a Christian even be a Christian without being Baptized?

And Baptized in what form? Dunked or sprinkled? Adult or infant?

If someone was sprinkled as an adult, and it was done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are they baptized enough to be a Baptist?

 

[daveleau]

I don't know of any Baptists that do not believe in Baptism. I have never been in a Baptist church that did not preach God's desire for us to be baptized.

I do know of many Baptist churches that hold to the Scriptural belief that baptism in water is not necessary for Salvation, but that that baptism is baptism in the Holy Spirit. The reason is that of the 9 verses that say that baptism is necessary for Salvation, 2 say that baptism in the Holy Spirit is necessary and one says that water is necessary. The rest just say baptism without clarifying whether it is by the Holy Spirit or by water. There is an OT passage that tells us that God washes us with water when He gives us His grace. I will look for that verse and get back to you. This is the probable explanation of this seeming contradiction (there is no contradiction in the Bible).

Baptism in water is God's desire. It should be done by all of His believers.

 

[JM]

We have some brothers (and sisters I'm sure) that are hyper dispensational, meaning they deny baptism and the Lord's Supper for the most part, yet they aline themselves with Baptists....

Just a little confussed. I think baptism is a good thing, a person can be saved without it just as a person can be married without a wedding ring but both are a sign to the world and are needed.

 

[bleechers]

That is a pretty good question. I would further it and say can a Christian even be a Christian without being Baptized?

And Baptized in what form? Dunked or sprinkled? Adult or infant?

If someone was sprinkled as an adult, and it was done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are they baptized enough to be a Baptist?

Baptist answers:

1. Yes

2. Immersed. Believers only (i.e. no babies)

3. Nope.

 

[Gold Dragon]

That is a pretty good question. I would further it and say can a Christian even be a Christian without being Baptized?

And Baptized in what form? Dunked or sprinkled? Adult or infant?

If someone was sprinkled as an adult, and it was done in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, are they baptized enough to be a Baptist?

I have never met a baptist that would answer no to the first question or yes to infant baptism.

However, some baptist churches are a little more lenient with allowing sprinkling.

 

[bleechers]

However, some baptist churches are a little more lenient with allowing sprinkling.

I'm sorry... you're correct. I guess I was answering for Southern Baptist churches.

We have some brothers (and sisters I'm sure) that are hyper dispensational, meaning they deny baptism and the Lord's Supper for the most part, yet they aline themselves with Baptists....

This is also correct. The mid-Acts dispensationalists do not believe baptism is for the this age. Thanks for pointing out that distinction!

 

[Iosias]

This is also correct. The mid-Acts dispensationalists do not believe baptism is for the this age. Thanks for pointing out that distinction!

But I am a classical dispensationalist and I do not believe that baptism is for the church.

 

[@@Paul@@]

Can a Christian be a Baptist and not believe in Baptism (or the Lord's Supper for that matter)?

There is only ONE Baptism,,, and it's not water.

I am a Baptist, I believe baptism is as necessary as not eating pork.
...........a believer can choose to not eat pork (or abstain from strong drink for that matter) to honor what God had once commanded.

...........a believer can also be baptized in water, to honor what God had once commanded.

The Lord's supper, well... I abstain. I would be more than happy to share WHY, if anyone's interested.

 

[@@Paul@@]

We have some brothers (and sisters I'm sure) that are hyper dispensational, meaning they deny baptism and the Lord's Supper for the most part, yet they aline themselves with Baptists....

Just a little confussed. I think baptism is a good thing, a person can be saved without it just as a person can be married without a wedding ring but both are a sign to the world and are needed.

I think i'm the only hyper-dispensational baptist around here... You should thank God there is only one of me...

 

[bleechers]

But I am a classical dispensationalist and I do not believe that baptism is for the church.

I have a strong Plymouth Brethren background (my wife's father is an itinerant PB speaker and has been for 20 years, and he discipled me when I came into the faith). I have attended countless seminars and conferences with PB teachers. What I know of dispensationalism is the term "mid-Acts" dispensationalists for people who do not believe that baptism is for the Church.

Let me say here, that is not a slight. I have great sympathy (there's that word again) for that position. I find far more to agree with in that position than I do with just about any other doctrinal stance on baptism. I enjoy reading Mid-Acts Dispys as well. As you should all know by now, I cringe at anything that smacks of "law-keeping".

Sorry if I did any injustice to the term "classic dispensationalist".

Although I do not have a problem with baptism in the church, I see it neither as necessary nor should anyone be compelled to be baptized.

Remember, I named my youngest daughter London Darby in honor of the man.

 

[BronxBriar]

I found this interesting.

From www.graceonline.org

Of all the different kinds of baptisms spoken about in the Bible, only one is of any importance to God, or has any application, in this present dispensation of His grace. That baptism is the one God Himself performs when the Spirit of God baptizes the believer "into Jesus Christ" at the moment of salvation, so identifying the believer with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Water baptisms in particular are "rudiments of the world" that functioned in accordance with the elementary purification, separation, and identification teachings of the Law Covenant, and as such were a natural part of God's program and dealings with Israel. As described in I Corinthians 1, at the beginning of this dispensation of grace in connection with testifying to Israel outside of their land, the Apostle Paul used water baptisms on certain occasions as a sign to unbelieving Israel. With the exception of this limited use, water baptisms have no role or function in this present dispensation of grace.

 

[Iosias]

Although I do not have a problem with baptism in the church, I see it neither as necessary nor should anyone be compelled to be baptized.

I find some of the ideas of some classical dispensationalists to be strange. Considering that Darby who believed that the Great Commission was not for the church was a baptist and he even practiced paedobaptism.

 

[bleechers]

Water baptisms in particular are "rudiments of the world" that functioned in accordance with the elementary purification, separation, and identification teachings of the Law Covenant,

Quick question: I realize their placing in the Book of Acts, but why were Cornelius (Italian - whoopi!) and the Eunich (Ethiopian) baptized in water since they were never part of the Law Covenant (unless the Eunich was an Ethiopian Jew)?

Thanks!

 

[@@Paul@@]

Quick question: I realize their placing in the Book of Acts, but why were Cornelius (Italian - whoopi!) and the Eunich (Ethiopian) baptized in water since they were never part of the Law Covenant (unless the Eunich was an Ethiopian Jew)?

Thanks!

Hi bleechers, I believe the Eunich was a proselyte OR "God fearer" as they were commonly called.

Who were part of the Law Covenants, and addressed in Peter's speech.

Act 2:8-10 KJV
(8) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
(9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
(10) Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,​

Unless Phillip was shown this before Peter...

Act 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.​

Just some thoughts.

 

[Iosias]

Quick question: I realize their placing in the Book of Acts, but why were Cornelius (Italian - whoopi!) and the Eunich (Ethiopian) baptized in water since they were never part of the Law Covenant (unless the Eunich was an Ethiopian Jew)?

Thanks!

My understanding is because they were to shew their separation from the "untoward generation" of Acts 2.

Darby states the following (Street preacher...I down loaded it...its fantastic!! )

"Peter had proclaimed the call of the Gentiles in his first discourse; but to realise it, and give form to its conditions, in connection with that which had already existed historically, required the intervention, the authority, and the revelation of God. Progress is evident through the patient grace of God; for it was not the wisdom of man. Altogether Jewish at the commencement, the people of Jerusalem were taught that Jesus would return if they repented. This testimony of grace is rejected, and, in the person of him who maintained it, the firstfruits of the assembly go up to heaven. The Holy Ghost, in His sovereign liberty, acts in Samaria and among the proselytes. The assembly being scattered by the persecution, Saul is brought in by the revelation of a glorious Christ, and by a testimony from His mouth which implies the union of saints on earth with Himself their Head in heaven as only one body. After this a pious Gentile, converted but still a Gentile, receives faith in Christ and the Holy Ghost; so that, marked out by this testimony — this seal from God Himself to his faith — the apostle and the disciples who were the most attached to Judaism receive him; Peter by baptising him, and the others by accepting Peter's act."

 

[JM]

So does that mean you're a baptist who doesn't believe in baptism or that you're not a baptist because you deny baptism for the church?

 

[BT]

So does that mean you're a baptist who doesn't believe in baptism or that you're not a baptist because you deny baptism for the church?

I'm a baptist who believes in baptism for the church. I'm also a dispensationalist who disagrees with the above posts. But that's ok.

 

[BT]

I'm just curious about this idea of Acts as a transitional book. I think what you're saying is that the dispensation actually started somewhere in Acts. If that's not what you're saying then sorry I must have misunderstood. If that is what you're saying then I'd like to ask where in the book of Acts we see the end of one dispensation, and the start of the next? There are, as I'm sure you know, various points of dispensationalism which mark a new dispensation (oikonomia). So I'm looking into Acts and trying to find the markings of either the end of a dispensation, or the beginning of a new one... give me a hand..

 

[@@Paul@@]

I'm just curious about this idea of Acts as a transitional book. I think what you're saying is that the dispensation actually started somewhere in Acts. If that's not what you're saying then sorry I must have misunderstood. If that is what you're saying then I'd like to ask where in the book of Acts we see the end of one dispensation, and the start of the next? There are, as I'm sure you know, various points of dispensationalism which mark a new dispensation (oikonomia). So I'm looking into Acts and trying to find the markings of either the end of a dispensation, or the beginning of a new one... give me a hand..

Hi BT,
If we look at the first 10 chapters of Acts, whether it was supposed to be a Jewish ministry or not, It clearly was....

The question is, If we believe Gentiles should have been let in, then Peter was clearly wrong. OR, the offer of grace given to Israel (a second chance) was the beginning of "the dispensation of grace" BUT also the beginning of a transition to a calling apart from the nation of Israel (the One New Man)... God knew they would fall at Acts 28, so He made provisions accordingly (fitly framed)… that does not mean the offer of the Kingdom was not valid. What happened during Acts was the door was opened to the Gentiles – so when God picks up his plan during the Tribulation, Gentiles will still be invited to the wedding.

The Kingdom was "at hand" in the Gospels because the King was there and was going to sacrifice Himself for the sins of ALL... The kingdom could not actually be offered prior to the events of Calvary... thus sayeth the scriptures.

Peter was now offering the kingdom in the first part of Acts. - the first few speeches confirm this.

Act 10:36-37 KJV
(36) The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all
(37) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;​

And when Peter uses the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to let Gentiles in, He states the “word” has not changed since the “baptism which John preached” (which was sent to Israel).

I believe there was “Two Witnesses” running around during acts, just like there will be during the Tribulation….

Here’s a great summary of Acts written by my Pastor. - Lesson 1 explains the above much better...
http://www.opendoorbaptist.com/articles/actslssn.html