why do different Baptist churches not accept baptism in another baptist church?

[BobRyan]

I've been an independent Baptist since 1970, and I have never attended a church that required you to be baptized into their congregation. However, I have heard about it.

PS. I was baptized in a creek on a winter day with snow on the ground.

were you then voted into membership??

 

[Vince53]

"were you then voted into membership??"

Not that day, but I have never had any Baptist church refuse to admit me as a member. I even told them that I had been baptized in a creek.

 

[Vince53]

I have tried hard to find Biblical justification for closed communion. The best I have found is that a local church has the authority to discipline its members, which includes barring them from the Lord's Supper.

Since the local church does not have disciplinary authority over visitors, the local church is not authorized by God to give them the Lord's Supper.

Another argument is that a local church, if correct in its doctrine, is a complete Body of Christ. Because a visitor is not part of that Body of Christ, he cannot receive the Lord's Supper.

 

[BobRyan]

"were you then voted into membership??"

Not that day, .

I assume that means you were baptized and then voted into membership from your post -- whether that day or the next. My point is -I assume the same pastor or local congregation that baptized you also voted you into membership after that.

 

[BobRyan]

I have tried hard to find Biblical justification for closed communion. The best I have found is that a local church has the authority to discipline its members, which includes barring them from the Lord's Supper.

Since the local church does not have disciplinary authority over visitors, the local church is not authorized by God to give them the Lord's Supper.

Another argument is that a local church, if correct in its doctrine, is a complete Body of Christ. Because a visitor is not part of that Body of Christ, he cannot receive the Lord's Supper.

I don't recall "bar from the Lord's Supper" in 1 Cor 11. Rather we have "27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For the one who eats and drinks, eats and drinks judgment to himself if he does not properly recognize the body. 30 For this reason many among you are weak and sick, and a number are asleep

 

[actionsub]

Another argument is that a local church, if correct in its doctrine, is a complete Body of Christ. Because a visitor is not part of that Body of Christ, he cannot receive the Lord's Supper.

This is the supporting argument I've heard for closed communion and rebaptism.

 

[Vince53]

Brethren, I should clarify that I do not believe in closed communion. I do not find the arguments for closed communion to be Scripturally valid. However, it helps to see their side of it.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Southern Baptists, while a bit less strict on transfers from other SB congregations, are fairly hardcore on this "rebaptism" thing from other denominations. It's probable they would make exceptions for, say, former Independent Baptists or Bible Churchers, but that's about it.

While they will refer to "of like faith and order", that "order" part knocks out almost everyone but other Baptists, and they'd probably even apply that to the Free Will Baptists because of their rejection of "once saved always saved".

It stems from disputes with what is now known as the Church of Christ over who was the "New Testament Church". The founders of the Restoration Movement claimed that they were restoring the true New Testament Church. In response, a group of Baptist writers came up with what they felt were five or so marks of a true church...which coincidentally lined up with Southern Baptist theology and practice. However, they applied those markers loosely so that almost anyone up to Martin Luther who dissented with the Roman Catholic Church counted, making it possible to create a variant on apostolic succession in which there was always some kind of "Baptist" church from the resurrection forward.

TL; DR: I'm a Nazarene now because I refuse to make my wife, who was immersed in the Christian Church, undergo another baptism just to satisfy a quirk of Baptist ecclesiology.

Indeed, from the perspective of sacramental theology, I really disagree with the Baptists on the subject of Baptism. By the way, could you link us to the “five marks” you referenced?

 

[The Liturgist]

This is the supporting argument I've heard for closed communion and rebaptism.

Now that particular form of local church ecclesiology makes no sense to me at all, and as a Congregationalist, albeit one who is also pro-episcopal in cases where an episcopate makes sense (since if we look at the early church, we basically see the local congregation expanding into dioceses as they opened what modern day megachurches like to call “satellite campuses,” which is to say. additional parishes, with the original local church becoming the cathedral; I cannot find any historical evidence for the Presbyterian model of governance as it is precisely implemented within the Reformed tradition, although this also seems to be a point of adiaphora among Reformed Christians, since one can also find congregational and even episcopal governance.

 

[The Liturgist]

were you then voted into membership??

I am really uncomfortable with the idea of having to be “voted into membership.” We become grafted onto the Body of Christ through the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, and the congregation does not have the right to deny sincere conversion to any one.

i pretty much reject SBC theology outright, even though I am in lock step with them on moral and social issues, and I also regard Dr. Albert Mohler as one of the foremost scholars of divinity alive at present, along with NT Wright, Dr. Rowan Williams, Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. John Behr, and certain other theologians.

 

[actionsub]

Indeed, from the perspective of sacramental theology, I really disagree with the Baptists on the subject of Baptism. By the way, could you link us to the “five marks” you referenced?

It's been a while since I'd read the book "Trail of Blood". I'll link you to the whole thing at the end of the post. And it's not five marks, but 11!

1. Its Head and Founder— CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)
2. Its only rule of faith and practice-THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)
3. Its name-"CHURCH," "CHURCHES." (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)
4. Its polity~CONGREGATIONAL~all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)
5. Its members— only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)
6. Its ordinances-BELIEVERS' BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20)
7. Its officers-PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)
8. Its work— getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God's Word), teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"). (Matt. 28:16-20)
9. Its financial plan~"Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (I Cor. 9:14)
10. Its weapons of warfare— spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)
11. Its independence— separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

https://baptistbecause.com/Tracts/TrailBlood.pdf

 

[The Liturgist]

It's been a while since I'd read the book "Trail of Blood". I'll link you to the whole thing at the end of the post. And it's not five marks, but 11!

1. Its Head and Founder— CHRIST. He is the law-giver; the Church is only the executive. (Matt. 16:18; Col. 1:18)
2. Its only rule of faith and practice-THE BIBLE. (II Tim. 3:15-17)
3. Its name-"CHURCH," "CHURCHES." (Matt. 16:18; Rev. 22:16)
4. Its polity~CONGREGATIONAL~all members equal. (Matt. 20:24-28; Matt. 23:5-12)
5. Its members— only saved people. (Eph. 2:21; I Peter 2:5)
6. Its ordinances-BELIEVERS' BAPTISM, FOLLOWED BY THE LORD'S SUPPER. (Matt. 28:19-20)
7. Its officers-PASTORS AND DEACONS. (I Tim. 3:1-16)
8. Its work— getting folks saved, baptizing them (with a baptism that meets all the requirements of God's Word), teaching them ("to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you"). (Matt. 28:16-20)
9. Its financial plan~"Even so (TITHES and OFFERINGS) hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel," (I Cor. 9:14)
10. Its weapons of warfare— spiritual, not carnal. (II Cor. 10:4; Eph. 6:10-20)
11. Its independence— separation of Church and State. (Matt. 22:21)

https://baptistbecause.com/Tracts/TrailBlood.pdf

Oh dear, that’s full on Landmark Baptism / Trail of Blood ecclesiology, which is greatly erroneous and at times, a bit preposterous and filled with naive conjectures, for example, the idea that Cathars, Albigensians, Paulicians and Bogomils were persecuted proto-Baptist churches, when in fact, if we study the surviving documents, including in some cases heretical psuedigrapha, as well as contemporary accounts of them, we can see they were in fact Gnostics who any Baptist who encountered them otherwise would very correctly recoil in horror.

The Lollards and Waldensians can of course be regarded as proto-Protestant, although we have no reason to suppose they were Baptist; they very quickly embraced Calvinist Reformed theology after being rescued from genocide by the Swiss reformed Christians, and the modern day Waldensian Church in Italy also incorporates the former Italian Methodists, and the ethnically Waldensian parishes in the US are mostly a part of the PCUSA I have noticed ( @hedrick are you familiar with those groups ? )

 

[actionsub]

Oh dear, that’s full on Landmark Baptism / Trail of Blood ecclesiology, which is greatly erroneous and at times, a bit preposterous and filled with naive conjectures, ...

You will note that "Trail of Blood" was the work cited for that list. A true masterpiece of revisionist church history cobbled together to make a case for something that couldn't be proven otherwise. Basically, the whole thing boils down to "they rejected Roman Catholic oversight and so should you". Landmarker thinking holds a strong influence on SBC ecclesiology.

 

[BobRyan]

I am really uncomfortable with the idea of having to be “voted into membership.” We become grafted onto the Body of Christ through the sacraments of Baptism and Holy Communion, and the congregation does not have the right to deny sincere conversion to any one.
.

I have a thread here on the Orthodox liturgy used to accept new members into the Orthodox church - which in the case of Catholics wanting to join - involves publically declaring very specific Catholic doctrine to be heresy -- I don't know if your orthodox group does that as part of its prescribed liturgy - but if so I can see why you might object.

But "other than that" - I assume anyone in the Orthodox church would know I am not a member of their local congregation. Wouldn't they also know the difference in general between a visitor and a member in your ideal world?

In the Baptist and SDA world - sometimes members attend a business session - and vote on items that govern the group "like yearly budget". I assume Orthodox members do not "vote" on issue for the local congregation from your response. true??

 

[Vince53]

In a slightly comical sidenote, I ask: If a Baptist refuses to accept Nazarene baptism, should he accept Free Will Baptist baptism? Should he accept baptism from a church with a different view on the Rapture. If a "Bible" church believes everything Baptists believe, would you accept their baptism. Would you accept baptism from a Baptist church that teaches pacifism, and if so, would you accept Brethren baptism?

Brethren, the only Biblical requirement for baptism that I can see is that the person must accept Christ first.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have a thread here on the Orthodox liturgy used to accept new members into the Orthodox church - which in the case of Catholics wanting to join - involves publically declaring very specific Catholic doctrine to be heresy -- I don't know if your orthodox group does that as part of its prescribed liturgy - but if so I can see why you might object.

Firstly, lest there be no confusion: I am a Congregationalist Protestant who follows a generic Orthodox Christianity which in my opinion is compatible with Anglo Catholicism, High Church Anglicanism, traditional Moravianism*, Evangelical Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, traditional Old Catholicism of the Union of Scranton variety, and most aspects of the faith of the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East (although I am not comfortable venerating Nestorius or referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary as “Christotokos” , rather than “Theotokos”, because the latter model is more theologically correct; it opens a Christological can of worms when you stop using phrases that should be permitted on the basis of communicatio idiomatum, which is a concept which ought to be regarded as attaching dynamically to the model of hypostatic union, which the Assyrian Christology of Mar Babai the Great does expressly embrace (at least if we regard the Syriac philosophical construct of the qnumeh as equivalent to the Classical and Byzantine philosophicalss construct of the hypostasis).

Secondly, the reception of Christians by the confession of faith is practiced in different ways in different churches, both within the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and separately within the realm of doctrinally Orthodox Protestant Catholic churches in which I work. A great many Orthodox churches, owing to the progresses made in ecumenical dialogue with the Roman Catholics and other denominations, no longer do a public recantation of errors. Indeed in my time in the OCA as a laic after having left the UCC and the ECUSA due to liberalism and the retirement of my friend respectively, I did not personally see anyone received in this way, although there are parishes, particularly those with lots of Western “conwertsy” in some of the EO churches where I have heard of them doing that, but I myself would avoid such a parish as an entry point, since you can always join one Eastern or Oriental Orthodox jurisdiction in one parish and then shimmy on over to another parish in another jurisdiction (this only becomes a potential bother if one wanted to move from an EO to an OO parish), which is I suspect a benefit in general of joining a church that is in full communion with other churches in the same geographical space.

But "other than that" - I assume anyone in the Orthodox church would know I am not a member of their local congregation.

Again, how would they know that? Parishes can encompass large areas, and members come and go. In the 19th century, in the Russian Orthodox Church, as was unfortunately common at the time in most of the world’s liturgical churches, the laity were not partaking of the Holy Eucharist as often as would be preferred, and St. John of Kronstadt welcomed very large numbers of pilgrims to his sailors’ chapel in the port city of Kronstadt near St. Petersburg, where he used a form of hybrid general and auricular confession in which the people shouted their sins so as to provide anonymization, and then he gave the Eucharist to all (presuming they were Orthodox).

Wouldn't they also know the difference in general between a visitor and a member in your ideal world?

In my ideal world, there will be no distinction between visitors and members of any given local congregation or diocesan parish, but only between those Christians who have accepted the apostolic faith as outlined in the CF.com Statement of Faith and rejected every heterodoxy, and catechumens who are learning the faith and moving towards baptism in which their sins and the cumulative impact of the errors of their discredited prior religions, such as Islam or Buddhism or Mormonism or the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Scientology, will be swallowed up in God’s victory, revealing their resplendent beauty as they emerge from the font into the new life, having died to themselves and been born again into the faith of the Resurrection of Christ Jesus, the infinitely loving true God who put on our corrupt human nature, died and rose again from the grave so as to restore our human nature and deify it, thus bestowing upon us the faith of the new covenant, freeing us from the bonds of the Law in favor of the Gospel (recently thanks to my friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @ViaCrucis I feel like I have learned how to use the Lutheran concept of the Law/Gospel dichotomy homiletically and dialectically in a manner consistent with the Patristic expressions of faith I have become accustomed to resort to) and enabling us to benefit from theosis, or entire sanctification.

In the Baptist and SDA world - sometimes members attend a business session - and vote on items that govern the group "like yearly budget". I assume Orthodox members do not "vote" on issue for the local congregation from your response. true??

The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches typically have business meetings for the parish, and parishes and cathedrals tend to have boards of directors who do things like manage the budget and finances for a parish, whereas the diocese as a whole will have various committees to assist with this, although the specific administrative structure can vary between the Orthodox churches, but you would probably do better to ask a member of the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox churches like my friends @GreekOrthodox @prodromos @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko for information on how exactly things are managed. It is not greatly different from how Old Catholic or Anglican or Scandinavian Lutheran churches are managed, in that you have an episcopal hierarchy but the Popes, Patriarchs, Catholicos, Archbishops or Metropolitans are presiding bishops but not supreme bishops (primus inter pares and not primus sine paribus, in contrast to the Roman Catholic hierarchy where the Pope of Rome is primus sine paribus, the supreme bishop, whose authority within the RCC is immense, although not as nearly as powerful as say, that of Mary Baker Eddy within Christian Science); you also have a conventional diocesan structure (unlike the synodal structure of the ELCA, or the conference/district structure of the UMC, which are kind of equivalent in that an ELCA synod is a diocese in all but name, and UMC districts strike me as also being dioceses per se, with conferences being more akin to provinces or archdioceses, but there are still practical differences in terms of administration), and like in the Roman Catholic church, there are different national-level entities within some of the Orthodox churches, albeit structured differently in different Orthodox churches based on factors such as the population of the country and the ratio of ethnic diaspora to converts.

It’s all very dry and boring, just like the system of vestries and church wardens and the Houses of Bishops and Laity that typically exist in Anglican churches, but it works as a model which incorporates the desires of the laity, which is why I like it; I also like Congregational and Presbyterian polity (although I don’t understand where Calvin, Knox, et al, thought they saw Presbyterianism per se in the Early Church; the model strikes me as a sophisticated alternative to other non-episcopal polities, but the precise organization of the presbytery or classis with its Sessions, General Assemblies, teaching elders, ruling elders and moderators, seems to be lacking in the Early Church, but to me this does not preclude us from considering the Presbyterian model as a viable form of ecclesiastical polity).

In general though @BobRyan if you have questions concerning the Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox you should ask them about it, ideally in their respective forums, the Voice in the Desert for OO members, and St. Basil’s Hall for enquiring about Eastern Orthodoxy: St. Basil the Great's Hall I do know a lot about Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy, having at one time been a member of the OCA and having spent some time visiting EO and OO and Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches and monasteries, but questions about the specifics of internal administration vary within the EO and OO communions and are best answered by a member of those churches.

 

[The Liturgist]

In a slightly comical sidenote, I ask: If a Baptist refuses to accept Nazarene baptism, should he accept Free Will Baptist baptism? Should he accept baptism from a church with a different view on the Rapture. If a "Bible" church believes everything Baptists believe, would you accept their baptism. Would you accept baptism from a Baptist church that teaches pacifism, and if so, would you accept Brethren baptism?

Brethren, the only Biblical requirement for baptism that I can see is that the person must accept Christ first.

The only requirement in my opinion, based on the view of the early church, for baptism, is that one must be baptized in water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, preferably with three immersions, or affusions or aspersions in the event there is some problem with immersion. There is no scriptural requirement that the person accept Christ first, because the baptism of infants is a scriptural practice enjoined on us by Christ when he commanded “suffer the little ones to come to me;” since Baptism is a prerequisite for the reception of Holy Communion, and since Holy Communion is the way in which we approach Christ our God and partake of His sacramental grace, it is a moral imperative in my view that we baptize our infants and our youth so they can receive the Bread of Life (John 6:22-63) and thus be grafted into the One Body of the Church (1 Corinthians 10:1-11:34) and be partakers of the divine nature in the Holy Eucharist (2 Peter 1:1-34)

 

[Vince53]

I disagree with you, Liturgist, but those are two intelligent, well-written, informative posts. Thank you.

 

[The Liturgist]

I disagree with you, Liturgist, but those are two intelligent, well-written, informative posts. Thank you.

Thank you very much, I appreciate that. My goal is to be helpful and informative even if you dont agree with my own theology. You can rate users posts “informative” or “useful” without signifying an agreement with them, and there is a separate “agree” rating, just so you know. God bless you Vince.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I have tried hard to find Biblical justification for closed communion. The best I have found is that a local church has the authority to discipline its members, which includes barring them from the Lord's Supper.

Since the local church does not have disciplinary authority over visitors, the local church is not authorized by God to give them the Lord's Supper.

Another argument is that a local church, if correct in its doctrine, is a complete Body of Christ. Because a visitor is not part of that Body of Christ, he cannot receive the Lord's Supper.

My Church practices closed communion, and I endorse the practice. Main reason being the Biblical admonitions and warnings to those who fail to discern the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and also to them who would receive the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. Scripture warns that doing such is a sin, and can result in not only spiritual damage, but may be physically harmful as well. Therefore those who have not been instructed and examined may not receive Christ's body and blood in our Church; likewise those who have been excommunicated for various valid reasons may not receive the sacrament in our Church or any Church in our Synod or Church body with which we are in fellowship. Closed communion is our way of protecting those whom may be, as Scripture says, eating and drinking judgement upon themselves. Yes, we know we can not see into peoples hearts, and there very well will be (hopefully not) those in our fellowship that carry unrepented sins; likewise some guests may have a right understanding; but we can only base our practice on what we know.

Closed communion is Pastoral and an expression of Christian love towards people outside our communion.