Featured Does it matter where you are water baptized?

The policy in effect for years at the International Mission Board was only recently overturned:

Baptist Press: Platt Announces Policy Change

"The only baptism requirements under the new policy are that a missionary be 'a baptized member of a Southern Baptist church' and possess a 'conviction of truth as expressed in the current Baptist Faith and Message statement of the Southern Baptist Convention.' The BF&M, Article VII, defines baptism as '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.' Article VII adds that baptism is 'prerequisite' to church membership and the Lord's Supper."

"Previously, IMB policy 200-16 stated: 'Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer's baptism by immersion alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer's salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.' The policy applied to all missionaries at all levels of service."

 

The only thing different there is the wording. The policy is the same as it has always been.

 

Actually I'm speaking of how it is seen doctrinally not when it originated. Did I say somewhere that fundies predated landmarkism? No, I didn't.

 

http://www.imb.org/updates/storyview.aspx?StoryID=5583#.VlvXwfmrTIU

 

Huh?
That report is from 2007, when they reaffirmed the policy, tinkering a bit with its language.
We're talking about the change this year.

 

....which doesn't amount to a hill of beans as long as the 'baptistee' has the proper intent for doing it.

But, as Paul circumcised Timothy in order for him to be accepted by the Jews, it's necessary to submit to re-baptism to be accepted by the Baptists.

 

That's what I'm getting at, although the latter is a huge given.

They do share common ground, and common error as well. Both groups, (though one in the same with a few differences Brider theology being a main difference) feel they are following the closest example of a NT church, that they have 'old-fashioned religion'. Their views are not that old in most cases and much soteriology stems from error not so long ago.

 

I am a Primitive Baptist. Occasionally someone asks why Primitive Baptist rebaptize people who come to us from other faiths. This is a valid question that deserves to be answered with a clear explanation. A simple answer is: God's word indicates rebaptism was practiced by the early church. Paul rebaptized the people he met in Ephesus who knew only John's baptism. “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:4-5) Why did Paul rebaptized these people? The answer has to do with two requirements for baptism that relate to the message of the gospel and baptismal authority 1. Proper baptism occurs in response to conviction that is produced in believers when they hear the one true gospel. 2. The ordinance of baptism was given to the Church by Christ; and is administered by men in the church who are ordained by unbroken, successive generations of laying on of hands that began with Christ ordaining his Apostles. (Mark 3:14)

Evidently, the twelve who Paul rebaptized previously submitted to baptism based on an incomplete and thereby erroneous gospel. It also appears they were baptized by one who assumed authority based on John's ministry, rather than the charge to baptize that originated with Christ.

The narrative of the events which culminated with Paul rebaptizing the saints he met in Ephesus begins in Acts 18:24-26 with a description of Apollos' arrival and activity in that city. “And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” This passage explains how Jews in Ephesus came to know about John's baptism. They learned about it from Apollos, who taught in the synagogue how John's message and baptism were in keeping with scriptural teachings and prophecies contained in the Old Testament.

Apollos' message, while containing good news, was not the true gospel inasmuch as it was incomplete. This is indicated by the reaction of Aquila and Priscilla when they heard his teaching. They “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.” Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament defines “perfectly” as “greater accuracy, more precision” The phrase “knowing only the baptism of John” suggests Apollos' understanding of scripture was limited to what he knew with respect to John's baptism and, by inference, John's message. If this is so, Apollos' teaching amounted to an incomplete gospel based on interpretations of Old Testament prophecy that were framed by his understanding of the message and activities of John the Baptist; but lacked accurate teachings about the salvation of sinners by the finished work of Christ Jesus.

Certainly, there was nothing wrong with John's ministry, message and baptism. He was God's messenger who said and did what God instructed. (Mark 1:2-8) But his calling and ministry were unique. God's word compares John to the Prophet Isaiah, as “The voice of one crying in the wilderness.” (Matthew 3:3) The entire focus of John's ministry was to prepare people to be disciples of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 3:3, Luke 1:17) He did this by announcing the arrival of the Messiah in His kingdom and calling on sinners to repent and be baptized. (Matthew 3:2, Mark 1:1-4)

John 1:36-37 provides a snapshot of the practical purpose of John's ministry. “And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus.” (John 1:36-37) John identified Jesus as the Christ, pointed his followers toward the Savior, and they became Jesus' disciples.

As God's Isaiah-like New Testament prophet John knew his own ministry would diminish and finally end as Jesus' public ministry began and increased to never end. “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (John 3:30); and “ Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:7)

The true significance of the good news of John's message could not be understood apart from the teachings and finished work of Jesus Christ. His message did not and could not, in light of John's death, present a Messiah who had finished the work He came to do. Nor did it even explain how Jesus would save sinners. It announced God's intention to save, but stopped short of pronouncing it accomplished by Christ's finished work.

The conclusion of John's ministry ended his authority to baptize. However the authority to baptize did not end with John. It continued by the authority of Christ when He gave this ordinance to His church. By a continuous succession, as indicated in the ordinations of preachers by laying on of hands, it will continue until the Savior returns.

Apollos knew only John's baptism. From which we infer he lacked details and understanding of the person and finished work of Christ Jesus. This left Apollos with an imprecise and incomplete message concerning God's purpose to save. This was not the same gospel preached in the New Testament Church to which Aquila and Priscilla belonged.

This brings us to Acts 19 and the account of Paul rebaptizing the twelve people at Ephesus. Like Apollos, they knew only about John's baptism. “And it came to pass that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.” (Acts 19:3) The fact these people had never heard of the Holy Ghost strongly suggests they had never heard the one true Gospel. Furthermore, it is likely they were taught John's baptism by someone other than John, since he preached Jesus would baptize with the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 3:11)

Scripture does not state who baptized these individuals; but, it is unlikely they were baptized by John. Ephesus is more than a thousand miles from Jordan River where John baptized. Also, more than 25 years had passed since John's death. It has been suggested Apollos baptized them; but this is not stated in scripture. Regardless of who baptized them, scripture plainly indicates prior to Paul preaching the true gospel to them, they did not know who Jesus is and what he accomplished. “Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.” (Acts 19:4-5)

What is clear is the twelve Ephesians, who knew only John's baptism, were rebaptized by Paul. They were rebaptized because their prior baptism was based on an incomplete and thereby inaccurate explanation of God's redemption of sinners. Also, inasmuch as the message they previously heard was incomplete, it is apparent whoever baptized them lacked New Testament Church authority to baptize, which was passed down from Christ to His church through the Apostles.

Acts Chapter 19 establishes the indisputable fact that rebaptism was practiced by the early church and also provides some insight into its practice. However, a more thorough examination of what the scriptures teach regarding water baptism is needed to better understand why Primitive Baptist churches rebaptize people who come to us from other faiths. God's Word reveals several topics that when considered together form the doctrine of water baptism. They also shed light on why the New Testament Church practices rebaptism. They include: One Baptism, Figure or Symbolism of Baptism, What Baptism Accomplishes, Proper Method of Baptism, Proper Authority to Baptize, Proper Candidates for Baptism

Brother Joe

 

Sounds a tad legalistic to me Joe.

 

Perhaps ‘the whole point of being Baptist’ is wrong then? Yes, it most certainly is, and the statement given is mere gloating. The whole point isn’t in religion, old-fashioned or otherwise, but a true conversion that evidences being known by God; Galatians 4:9, 1 Cor. 8:3; and knowing God; Jeremiah 9:23.

One would have to define 'old fashioned religion' and in so doing many would have little to glory in about being 'Baptist' as their views are not so 'old fashioned' after all. Pentecostals claim to have 'old fashioned religion' and how old is that system? One can claim anything and it doesn't make the claim true.

Nonetheless Baptists have been taught to glory about the name Baptist and that 'they are one'. Really? Is that old fashioned or new? Where is that in Scripture, this being taught to glory in being a Baptist? If it's not there, then it is new and unbiblical. I've seen this thing propagated in college, churches, meetings and it isn't pretty and isn't biblical. It's gloating and human pride. As an old friend use to say at Baptist fellowship meetings when the preachers would line up to gloat at the mic ‘Here comes the flesh parade’! He was right and that’s what it was.

What of the soteriological views of many ‘old-fashioned’ Baptists; decision-ism; easy-believe-ism, disciple/believer false dichotomy; Free Grace Theological error (making the ‘gospel’ a license to sin); contemporarily applied man-made legalism; Pelagianism both full and semi; brider theology, antinomianism all exist in those who gloat about being Baptist. None of these errors are 'old-fashioned' orthodox beliefs.

Given that a name does help delineate to some extent what one believes, I don't see it as Biblical to glory in a denominational affiliation, (I know the argument against being a denomination) but in Christ alone. The former is merely foolish pride and man-made teachings and this is nowhere in Scripture taught. It's man-boasting and nothing less. For the record I am Reformed Baptist and that is as far as I need go with naming my affiliation.

This entire thing was not heard of nor encouraged in the church, this boasting, schism concerning ones religious pedigree and heritage under the name and guise of a ‘biblical’ denomination I follow the ______ church, and it is seen in Scripture that this behavior is considered self-righteous, prideful and is rightly condemned. It is behaving in a human way as 1 Cor. 3:1-9 attests.

But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. Galatians 6:14

 

Hi Brother Steve,

I actually had to be baptized twice due to those reasons. I don't have a problem with it as I believe it is based on the Bible. Once when I joined the conditionalist Primitives, then again when I left and joined the absoluter Primitives. I do not think either group would recognize a baptized member from the other order.