IMB & Baptism on True Baptism

[aReformedPatriot]

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?

 

[arunma]

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.

 

[CCWoody]

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.​

 

[arunma]

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.

 

[CCWoody]

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.​

 

[HiredGoon]

I believe the OPC accepts any Christian, trinitarian baptism performed by an ordained minister.

 

[Blackhawk]

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.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

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

 

[aReformedPatriot]

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?

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

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

 

[edie19]

I grew up PCUSA - was baptized as an infant. As I grew up in the church I found myself questioning the rationale behind infant baptism. I could never reconcile it to Scripture passages that link belief and/or repentance to baptism. By the time I was in my early 20's I was pretty much convinced that credobaptism was Scriptural and the better option (that isn't the best way to say it, but my mind isn't cooperating right now). That said, my children were baptized as young children (my son was 6 and my daughter 2 - I caved to family pressure).

Anyhow - when I joined the RBC I currently attend I was asked if and how I was baptized. The fact that I was baptized by sprinkling and as an infant didn't impact my church membership at all. I was able to participate in all aspects of church life - including the Lord's table. Several years later I chose to be baptized by immersion - not because I felt my previous baptism was inadequate, but because it seemed to me to be an act of obedience to God the Father.

I, for one, would never question the truth of someone's conversion based upon how they were baptized. Without question there are committed Christians who were baptized as infants and there are people who have walked away from the church after being baptized as adults.

 

[Bernergirl]

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.

Interesting. I attend a Presbyterian church that is credobaptist. I was baptized (by immersion - it was cold, cold, COLD water...) about three weeks ago.

That said, I think as long as the person understood that they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins offered through Him by the Father, I would say that baptism is a one-time only deal. i.e.: Not invalidated by the beliefs of who performs it. (Of course, the point of whether or not they are truly believers could bring about some interesting debate...)

God bless all!

Lissa

 

[arunma]

Interesting. I attend a Presbyterian church that is credobaptist. I was baptized (by immersion - it was cold, cold, COLD water...) about three weeks ago.

That said, I think as long as the person understood that they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins offered through Him by the Father, I would say that baptism is a one-time only deal. i.e.: Not invalidated by the beliefs of who performs it. (Of course, the point of whether or not they are truly believers could bring about some interesting debate...)

God bless all!

Lissa

Interesting, I've always been under the impression that all Presbyterians are paedobaptist. In fact, over on the Semper Reformanda forum, that's the one area in which I don't fit in with the rest of the gang.

 

[HiredGoon]

Interesting, I've always been under the impression that all Presbyterians are paedobaptist. In fact, over on the Semper Reformanda forum, that's the one area in which I don't fit in with the rest of the gang.

Historically Presbyterians have been, and the vast majority today are paedobaptist, especially if they adhere to the Westminster Standards at all. I believe credobaptist Presbyterians are fairly rare. Like yourself, I used to think that all Presbyterians were paedobaptists, but I've since learned of the Free Presbyterian Church which is a denomination which allows both paedo and credo members. Maybe there's more out there. It seems like these days all you need are 1 or 2 churches and a pet doctrine you disagree with everyone else on to start your own micro Presbyterian denomination.

 

[bradfordl]

Credo-baptist Presbyterians?!? Somebody gather the kindling and I'll go get my zippo! We need to nip this outrage in the bud!

 

[CCWoody]

Historically Presbyterians have been, and the vast majority today are paedobaptist, especially if they adhere to the Westminster Standards at all. I believe credobaptist Presbyterians are fairly rare. Like yourself, I used to think that all Presbyterians were paedobaptists, but I've since learned of the Free Presbyterian Church which is a denomination which allows both paedo and credo members. Maybe there's more out there. It seems like these days all you need are 1 or 2 churches and a pet doctrine you disagree with everyone else on to start your own micro Presbyterian denomination.

Well, I'm PCA and we allow both padeo and credo baptists to be members. I think the ONLY group here which doesn't allow both membership are Baptists. That is somewhat troubling as I said considering all the Baptist churches in which I attended had a closed communion. It was like being a second class Christian.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[HiredGoon]

Well, I'm PCA and we allow both padeo and credo baptists to be members. I think the ONLY group here which doesn't allow both membership are Baptists. That is somewhat troubling as I said considering all the Baptist churches in which I attended had a closed communion. It was like being a second class Christian.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

Yeah, I wasn't clear. The OPC also has no doctrinal requirement on baptism for membership. But the official position of the denomination is paedobaptism, and that is clearly undrerstood by all. I don't believe the PCA or OPC allows credobaptists as teaching elders. What I meant about the FPC is that they practice both forms of baptism, with no doctrinal position on one side or the other.

 

[Imblessed]

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?

our church is not sbc, but it is baptist and they do allow membership to a person who was baptised as a baby, and also credobaptism by sprinkling. I think the only no-no is a non-trinitarian baptism. (does assemblies of God fit that? I forget which group baptises in Jesus' name only.....)

anyway, the op wasn't really discussing credo vs paedo anyway....

it sounds as if the sbc position is too rigid to me. Putting the doctrine of eternal security that high on the priority seems a bit.....exclusionary(is that the right word?) to me. It's kind of like saying you can't belong unless you've been baptised in a church that believes in the Rapture.......
Whether or not the doctrine is important(eternal security, yes....rapture, not so much - ) is beside the point......... imho

Course I'm one of the few credo-baptists here that doens't really have a problem with paedo-baptism, or even sprinkling really. I'm kind of baptist by default-----having grown up Quaker and not believing in 'baptism' in general for a majority of my life---I just think people should be(not have to be) baptised, and I'm not too picky about how!

 

[Bernergirl]

I believe the word you were looking for is "exclusive," my friend.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I think the only no-no is a non-trinitarian baptism. (does assemblies of God fit that? I forget which group baptises in Jesus' name only.....)

Nope. Assemblies of God is definitely Trinitarian. I used to be one! You're thinking of the Oneness Pentecostals. They go by that name, and there are many others, so confusion is understandable.

Course I'm one of the few credo-baptists here that doens't really have a problem with paedo-baptism, or even sprinkling really.

I guess I would be another. I always thought paedo-baptism was strictly a Catholic thing. It's only in the last few years that I've been exposed to covenant theology. I'm not 'converted' to paedo-baptism (yet, maybe!) but I'm no longer opposed, either.