Do Baptists accept into membership people who have undergone believer sprinkling?

[JM]

This question was asked on another forum, "Do Baptists, as a rule, accept into membership people who have undergone believer sprinkling?"

I would say no. Do you know of Baptist [not Anabaptist]churches who accept spinkling?

 

[Hentenza]

Not mine. We believe in baptism by immersion.

 

[DeaconDean]

While I cannot speak for everybody, I do know that my mother, was raised a Reformed Presbyterian. When she became a Baptist, I saw her immersed in water. And she told me that her mother, my grand-mother,(also Presbyterian) after years of being preached at by her brother, was also immersed.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[wpage]

When you join a Baptist church you will need to see what thier tradition is.

 

[JM]

When you join a Baptist church you will need to see what thier tradition is.

I'm just asking what the general practice is. I attend an IFB church and our practice is to baptize by immersion and to fence the table accordingly.

 

[Hentenza]

My church is part of the Southern Baptist Convention. Here is the SBC statement of faith regarding Baptism.

VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper.



The Baptist Faith & Message

 

[Scottish Knight]

This question was asked on another forum, "Do Baptists, as a rule, accept into membership people who have undergone believer sprinkling?"

I would say no. Do you know of Baptist [not Anabaptist]churches who accept spinkling?

I know one Baptist church (I used to be a member there) that accepted someone to membership who had been baptised as a believer by sprinkling although I think it caused a bit of a debate at the time. The church would also accept Christians who had been baptised as infants into membership as well as long as they could agree to the church statement of beliefs.

 

[AndOne]

A few years ago John Piper wanted to extend membership to folks baptised as infants to his church - Bethlehem Baptist in MN. The elders all shot it down - and Piper being the godly man that he is adhered to the elders' wishes. I believe Spurgeon wanted to do it as well at his church.

I'm a member of the SBC and you cannot be admited to membership unless you undergo baptism by immersion after making a confession of faith. My wife and I were Baptised in an Assembly of God Church and that was sufficient for membership in the SBC.

 

[JM]

I know John Bunyan attending a non-conforming church that held to open membership but I didn't know Spurgeon held such a low view of the ordinance of Baptism.

 

[RefCath]

I know of some dual policy churches.

 

[freezerman2000]

I have dual memberships,Episcopal and So.Baptist. When I was a small child, I was Baptized into the Ep. Church...in 2002, I officially joined the So. Baptist denomination, not dropping my Communion with the Ep.
I was OFFERED, immersion, but I was NEVER told that I had to get "dunked"...I chose to be, anyway.
(You could call me an Episcobapt)...
With the Ep. denomination, as long as you are Baptized, if you wish to join the Communion, all you need is to be "Confirmed" by the Bishop, after going through a series of classes to know what the Communion is about, and what is expected as a member.
My wife is an Episcobapt too.

 

[JM]

We can gleam that liberals and those confused about doctrine and church membership allow for dual membership?

 

[Missingno]

We will usually baptize anyone who asks but I've only heard sprinkling accepted for people who are on their death bed.

 

[freezerman2000]

We can gleam that liberals and those confused about doctrine and church membership allow for dual membership?

And what is wrong with dual memberships?

 

[JM]

Ahhh, if you have to ask...for real, it's doctrine. Baptist and Anglican are very, very different.

 

[freezerman2000]

Ahhh, if you have to ask...for real, it's doctrine. Baptist and Anglican are very, very different.

Both of us are comfortable with our memberships...it has not hurt our faith at all.

 

[JM]

That's wonderful...you're comfy. Is it more important to be comfortable or to bear witness to the truth of the Gospel? Is it paedo or credo baptism? Do you confess a [extreme liberal] episcopalian or congregational church government? Sacraments or ordinances? You can believe both and if you accept paedo baptism as valid, as the Anglicans do, you cannot be a Baptist.

j

 

[freezerman2000]

That's wonderful...you're comfy. Is it more important to be comfortable or to bear witness to the truth of the Gospel? Is it paedo or credo baptism? Do you confess a [extreme liberal] episcopalian or congregational church government? Sacraments or ordinances? You can believe both and if you accept paedo baptism as valid, as the Anglicans do, you cannot be a Baptist.

j

You are going legalistic...did it ever occur to you that basic faith in Christ has nothing to do with man made doctrine? Church doctrine can be a real stumbling block for some people's faith,.
I think that it's funny, but, neither Church raised any concerns, why should you?
BTW, I can be and am an "Episcobapt"...

 

[JM]

You are going legalistic...

You have no idea what legalistic means, do you? I'm not saying you need the Law to be saved.

did it ever occur to you that basic faith in Christ has nothing to do with man made doctrine?

Yes, it has. But Anglicanism is full of man made doctrine, which you have accepted...ever think of that?

Church doctrine can be a real stumbling block for some people's faith,.

What? That's not very smart.

You're saying that doctrine divides, yah, I know. But Christ didn't die so we could sit crossed legged on the floor, holding hands, singing kumbaya. Doctrine should divide and by the way...nothing is more of a stumbling block then claiming Christ crucified. It's good, proper doctrine that fallen man stumbles on.

I think that it's funny, but, neither Church raised any concerns, why should you?

It should be funny. It should cause you to question why. The Anglicans are a mess so I can understand why they wouldn't question the nature of your faith, with the droves of professing Anglicans leaving, they need the pews filled...and I'm sure you could find a liberal Baptist church that would allow for your confused doctrine to continue, but why would you want to belong to a church that stands for nothing?

BTW, I can be and am an "Episcobapt"...

More like Cafeteria Christianity. Walk down the line, arbitraily picking what you think "looks good" and you think you have re-created Christianity?

Where is the church in your picking and choosing?

How is that funny?

j

 

[freezerman2000]

Sorry if you see it that way....
Why should you be concerned about it anyway?
On that note, bye bye.