IMB & Baptism on True Baptism

[MerCYsMIraCLe]

But, really, nobody can say with any certaintity that believers baptism is NOT an unbeliever getting wet.

.​

Very True

 

[MerCYsMIraCLe]

IF they repented they were not to be re-circumcised

ROFL..and thank God for that.....if that were the case the call for being fruitful and multiplying may have been a hard command to follow.

 

[PretzelMonger]

I am considering this issue myself. I was baptized as an infant. I then had condfirmation classes about 13 years later (yes, I was raised with church as an integral part of my life.) I see someone said we are to remember our baptisms. I had only formed primitive memory when I was baptized (short-term etc.) I cannot remember it. I remember confirmation clearly of course. Reading my paper. Even the gist of its text. The special article of clothing I wore. (a light blue skirt with a lace cover--it still fits!)
I did go to the Baptist church however as I missed church in the morning due to having cramps.
They said my baptism was not valid...
I asked God for a sign, a vision. I got one, but didn't understand it.
A dream...yet I felt I was still half-awake.

It was like a split-screen effect. On the left side, it was blue. There were bubbles and water, and I was floating upwards. On the right side, it was a reddish-orange, and there were flames, and I was floating downwards. (Yes, still floating, not quickly falling or anything like that.)
On neither side did I come to any harm. I just silently passed my surroundings. I woke up totally for a minute, scared. I didn't understand this. Can anyone help me figure this out?

Pax,

Briana

 

[emmanemena]

I hope this isn't straying too far from the topic.

I was baptised as an infant in a presbyterian church. Later, when I was about 7 my family moved interstate and we started to attend a Baptist church because it was more family oriented. We moved states again and continued to go to a Baptist church as my sisters and I liked it better than the more traditional presbyterian church. My problem is that I was baptised as an infant but was never confirmed. This means that I cannot become a member of my current church.

I see my infant baptism as my true baptism and do not want to be rebaptised just for the sake of membership but then again I don't understand how it works when I was never confirmed formally. Has anyone else been in the same situation?

 

[heymikey80]

I am considering this issue myself. I was baptized as an infant. I then had condfirmation classes about 13 years later (yes, I was raised with church as an integral part of my life.) I see someone said we are to remember our baptisms. I had only formed primitive memory when I was baptized (short-term etc.) I cannot remember it.

Baptism of infants was classically on the occasion of their entry into God's covenant with them, and their dedication to holiness. The idea of "remember your baptism" is the fact that you have come into covenant with God. It's not to remember the event as if you felt it, experienced it, and lived it.

I remember confirmation clearly of course. Reading my paper. Even the gist of its text. The special article of clothing I wore. (a light blue skirt with a lace cover--it still fits!)
I did go to the Baptist church however as I missed church in the morning due to having cramps.
They said my baptism was not valid...

Since the First Century the baptism of small children has been valid. Hippolytus in 235 mentioned positively the baptism of small children with not yet the ability to talk.

I asked God for a sign, a vision. I got one, but didn't understand it.
A dream...yet I felt I was still half-awake.

It was like a split-screen effect. On the left side, it was blue. There were bubbles and water, and I was floating upwards. On the right side, it was a reddish-orange, and there were flames, and I was floating downwards. (Yes, still floating, not quickly falling or anything like that.)
On neither side did I come to any harm. I just silently passed my surroundings. I woke up totally for a minute, scared. I didn't understand this. Can anyone help me figure this out?

I'm intrigued. I've never had the experience of reading something like this and feeling I know what it symbolizes. On first read the imagery seems to symbolize the two images of baptism -- The purity and cleansing of the Spirit Who lives in you, I'm sure you recognize. But also recognize the second image: you are buried with Christ in baptism, wherein He descended to Hell or death for you, on your behalf.

To me this has a unique connection with your worry on baptism. It is not the undergoing of baptism as an adult that's so important. The Spirit's work is important; Christ's work is important.

So in the second image, your baptism long ago was a signing up to Christ experiencing death for you, and for the Spirit of God coming alongside your life and bringing you to repentance. Experiencing what baptism represents is in some cases trying to live through the one thing you're trying to avoid: we're baptised into dying with Christ so that we may rise and live with Him.

Your baptism is being experienced this very day as you walk in the Spirit. Water and Spirit are not separate. The Spirit has baptized you and feeds you in the sacraments spiritually received by you (1 Cor 12:13), and the result is clear: you are a member of Christ's body, the church.

Thirdly, you note yourself that you didn't come to experience harm. And baptism (in the whole, not simply the water but also the answer of a good conscience before God, by the Spirit) is intended to prevent your harm. Remember, the sinful person cannot endure God's presence. Yet you're indwelt by God, the Spirit. The blue is a point of contact there for the present. But your punishment Christ has already endured in the past. The red is a point of contact there for the past.

It's not the experience of water that you're asked to remember, but to be reminded of these things: your indwelling with the Spirit; your death with Christ; and your protection by God. Your experience is already here: the Spirit you experience every day.

Do you remember the Last Supper? No. And yet Jesus tells you to "Do this in remembrance of Me." It's your knowledge and relationship with Christ you're called on to remember here. You may project back to what God was doing in baptism, much as we all do with the Last Supper. But we don't have an experiential memory of it.

The remembrance is like God saying, "Remember that you signed a commitment to Me." The sign -- the signature -- is your baptism.

 

[heymikey80]

I hope this isn't straying too far from the topic.

I was baptised as an infant in a presbyterian church. Later, when I was about 7 my family moved interstate and we started to attend a Baptist church because it was more family oriented. We moved states again and continued to go to a Baptist church as my sisters and I liked it better than the more traditional presbyterian church. My problem is that I was baptised as an infant but was never confirmed. This means that I cannot become a member of my current church.

I see my infant baptism as my true baptism and do not want to be rebaptised just for the sake of membership but then again I don't understand how it works when I was never confirmed formally. Has anyone else been in the same situation?

Yes, and it gets even more twisted for me and my wife.

My wife was baptized in infancy. She would not be permitted membership in a Baptist church without rebaptism.

Only the smallest subset of Reformed Baptist churches ever accepts infant baptism as valid. The chances yours would do so are one in a million.

But like I said, it gets more twisted. I was baptized in a Baptist church. But I no longer believe in believer-only baptism. Therefore I can't be a member of many Baptist churches! Many (though not all) Baptist churches here not only require believer-only baptism -- they require a belief in believer-only baptism as the sole valid form of baptism.

It really depends on your church which is the case, so you'll need to check.

 

[Iosias]

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

Including by immersion?

 

[heymikey80]

Including by immersion?

Oh, you never got an answer ... the OPC accepts all modes of baptism as valid.

 

[PretzelMonger]

Guess what? This is crazy weird -- but I prayed to recall some memories from when I was an infant, and as visual acuity and memory had not developed by that time - I managed to get three memories...

1) Coming wet out of a squishy tunnel (Guess what it is.)
2) Taking a bath in the sink
3) A few splashes on my head that seemed large to me (but I was small!) [guess on this too!]

 

[Jon_]

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

That's generally correct. It also includes Catholic baptisms, something I haven't reconciled with, yet. I'm not sure why the OPC recognizes Catholic baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[Jon_]

Including by immersion?

Yes. My baptism was in the Nazarene church and it was by immersion. I was accepted into membership upon recognition of that baptism.

Soli Deo Gloria

Jon

 

[frysk]

I'm a little confused by this thread... Are most of the Calvinist around here believers in infant or believer baptism? As a member of a Christian Reformed Church I was always under the impression that all Calvinist believed in infant baptism for the reasons Cajun Huguenot so nicely posted.

 

[GrinningDwarf]

I'm a little confused by this thread... Are most of the Calvinist around here believers in infant or believer baptism? As a member of a Christian Reformed Church I was always under the impression that all Calvinist believed in infant baptism for the reasons Cajun Huguenot so nicely posted.

There are quite a few of us 'Reformed Baptists' around here as well. Have you ever heard of James R. White?

One thing I've discovered is that in common usage, the phrase 'Calvinist' still covers a wide range of beliefs other than paedobaptist covenant theology. For instance, John MacArthur is definitely a Calvinist in his soteriology...but he is also a credobaptist dispensational premilenialist.

 

[BigNorsk]

There are a lot of divisions on baptism other than whether or not one baptizes an infant, in some ways they help understanding of the conflicts better.

For instance is baptism gospel, or law? If gospel, it saves you, releases you from your sins, proclaims God's love to you.

If law, it condemns you, causes sin to abound, shows you your sinfulness. It of course does not save.

Or whether God or man does the baptism. If God, then of course baptism can save for it is the works of God by which we are saved. If man, then again it cannot save.

Those are a couple of basic understandings not often talked about. Though they are really what leads up to whether or not you tend to baptize infants.

If baptism is gospel and performed by God, generally you would see no reason not to baptize an infant.

If baptism is law, a work of man, generally you would restrict it to exclude infants.

Marv

 

[david01]

Marv has provided us with a clear Lutheran understanding in which everything breaks down into either Law or Gospel.

In the case of baptism, this is not so easily done as it, indeed, requires human effort (works) to perform. The Baptists will concur that it is a work of righteousness or sanctification, but not a work of grace or salvation. Reformed PaedoBaptists will also concur that is a work of righteousness (identification with the people of God) but not of grace or salvation. Lutherans and other folks such as the Churches of Christ will frame it as a work of grace (because it is not contained in the Law) and, therefore, has saving merit.

 

[heymikey80]

Marv has provided us with a clear Lutheran understanding in which everything breaks down into either Law or Gospel.

In the case of baptism, this is not so easily done as it, indeed, requires human effort (works) to perform. The Baptists will concur that it is a work of righteousness or sanctification, but not a work of grace or salvation. Reformed PaedoBaptists will also concur that is a work of righteousness (identification with the people of God) but not of grace or salvation. Lutherans and other folks such as the Churches of Christ will frame it as a work of grace (because it is not contained in the Law) and, therefore, has saving merit.

Ah, er, hm. There's a qualification here -- as I'm a Reformed infant baptist maybe -- maybe I can get above my culture and try to say something about it. The American Presbyterian Church has generally shifted toward the Zwinglian view, but it's not really characteristic of Westminster.

Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted
​

This is even a factor in the current controversies in Reformed Presbyterian churches. You can read say the FV controversy and pick up distinctively that the basis for infant baptism in the PCA is losing ground, if the arguments made there were turned to address baptism (which they inherently are, the controversy actually demands it).

 

[david01]

You are quite correct. The Zwinglian view has gained ground in a variety of reformed paedobaptist churches, especially the PCUSA. It is also intersting to note that it has become quite common in many churches which practice confessional baptism to "dedicate" their infants, sometimes going so far as to adopt the liturgical language and paraphernalia of infant baptism, sans the water. I attended such a service once with my parents, unexpectedly. When my mother asked what was happening, I explained to her that it was a dry baptism.

 

[jars7]

Hello all,

I was raised in the Reformed Church. In the 1960's it became the United Church of Christ. Not sure here if this is the same Reformed Church you are refering to.

I was baptized as an infant and had my 2 chldren baptized when they were born. I was confirmed at age 12 or 13.

When I was 26 I had a deeper, more meaningful understanding of salvation by reading scripture. I don't think I fully grasped this at 12 or 13. After praying to the Lord to forgive me of my sin and take over my life to live for Him, I then read scriptures in Acts about baptism. Everywhere it stated that "after believing" and accepting Jesus Christ they went "down" into the water to be baptized.

I made a decision to go to a local church that practiced immersion, to be baptized. It was "my" decision, "after" I fully committed my life to Jesus.

I do not discredit my parents, or any church's practice of infant baptism. I believe it is a type of infant dedication in the church. But an infant cannot make a choice , at that age, to believe, or to choose to be baptized.

Baptism is an outward symbol of belonging to Jesus Christ, just as a wedding ring is a symbol of marriage.

I do not believe that baptism saves one, or qualifies one for entrance into the church or heaven.

The thief on the cross was not baptized, yet Jesus told him that he would be with Jesus in Paradise that very day.

I share my experience on Baptism not to condemn or stir up anger, just to testify of my spiritual journey.

 

[jlujan69]

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

What if a church, while not rejecting infant baptism, still wanted their prospective members to have received credobaptism either at it or another church that they attended before? Also, how does accepting a credo automatically deny the paedo? Are the two necessarily mutually exclusive?

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

My SBC church that I am a member of recognized my baptism by immersion at a non-SBC baptist church(BMAA actually.) They did not however recognize my Roman Catholic infant baptism, or confirmation. That is typically baptist, but it's cool by me. I chose to get re-baptized(in my mind baptized as a regenerate believer).
Our church recognizes all trinitarianbaptisms by immersion from any church except those that see baptism as a washing away of sins(ie, regenerative baptism as in a Church of Christ denom church). We don't accept mormon or JW(do they baptize) baptisms period.

I wanted to add that our baptism "program" has changed drastically in the past few months. We will NOT baptise anyone who just "answers an altar call" so to speak. We have classes and also personal witness and video testimony for new members so the church can see people are "sincere". I know it's not perfect...but we've done this because we've had people come and get baptised and join the church and never seen again after a month.

(we use video testimony of new believers and show it to the congregation while they are standing in the baptismal. We tried having people at first when we implemented this do live testimony at first but we felt that it's hard for some people to talk in front of large crowds, without a mic in a robe in waist deep water ...and to me that would be nervewrecking!!! lol)

We also have people, members at our church who choose to get rebaptized...to me I 100% disagree. For the only reason given to us(the congregation) when it's announced is that the people feel they "got things out of order", ie baptised then saved, when as baptists it should be the other way around. Now I was baptised twice, once as a Catholic infant, one as a 26 year old baptist...I refuse to get baptized again despite the fact that I backslid for a good ten years after my second time in the waters.






thanks for listening.