Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Just Mike

Should Reformed Baptist accept a persons Baptism?

Recommended Posts

If a person said they were baptized in the name of the father, Son, and Holy Spirit should Churches accept this persons baptism?

Edited by Just Mike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if a person said they were baptized in the name of the father, son, and holy spirit should churches accept this persons baptism?

 

YES!

 

Do you remarry Catholic converts?

 

Would you allow a couple in your church, who were married in a Catholic church, to end their marriage? Would it not be divorce?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

YES!

 

Do you remarry Catholic converts?

 

Would you allow a couple in your church, who were married in a Catholic church, to end their marriage? Would it not be divorce?

 

Absolutely not. Only immorality, Jesus said is a reason for divorce. Regardless of where a couple is married a Vow is a Vow. However if a Christian married a non-christian, and the unsaved one leaved and divorces, the saved person if free to remarry. Matthew 5"32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; 1 Corinthians 7:10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very well then, as I Lutheran, I'd consider any Trinitarian baptism to be valid, of either infant or adult, so I'd say " yes."

 

Would you accept a Roman Catholic's baptism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It's still Trinitarian, yes I would.

 

The Roman Catholic Church has so distorted the Gospel, and when someone is Baptized under that ant-Christ RCC authority I would not accept that baptism as being under the Gospel Of Jesus Christ. Any person being baptized by the Mormon church would not have their baptism recognized either, so it would also be the same for a person coming from the RCC. Other religious cults like Unity, and JW's baptism would also require to be baptized under the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Do you understand my point?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Roman Catholic Church has so distorted the Gospel, and when someone is Baptized under that ant-Christ RCC authority I would not accept that baptism as being under the Gospel Of Jesus Christ. Any person being baptized by the Mormon church would not have their baptism recognized either, so it would also be the same for a person coming from the RCC. Other religious cults like Unity, and JW's baptism would also require to be baptized under the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Do you understand my point?

 

Yes, I think I get what you're saying. It certainly makes sense, as the Catholic Church has gone down the Pelagian garden path, but their understanding of the Trinity is basically correct, which is why I would accept a baptized Christian who was baptized as a Catholic. Of course, I would want the person in question to be properly catechized so they can make an intelligent and correct profession of Christian Faith that is solidly grounded on Scripture rather than the self- averred "authority" of the RCC.

Edited by ConfessionalLutheran
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Roman Catholic Church has so distorted the Gospel, and when someone is Baptized under that ant-Christ RCC authority I would not accept that baptism as being under the Gospel Of Jesus Christ. Any person being baptized by the Mormon church would not have their baptism recognized either, so it would also be the same for a person coming from the RCC. Other religious cults like Unity, and JW's baptism would also require to be baptized under the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

Do you understand my point?

 

Many protestant ministers are worse than the RCC. Would you accept a baptism from a Protestant Liberal church? What about Word of Faith? What about a baptism perfomed by a minister who the very next day after baptising someone left the faith and says that he never was a Christian?

 

It's not the church nor the man, but the God whose name is invoked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator

They should accept it because that person accepts their infant baptism, as it is faith that make baptism true for the baptized.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should accept it because that person accepts their infant baptism, as it is faith that make baptism true for the baptized.

 

With respect for your view on this matter, there is a difference between those who baptize infants, and Baptists that do not. In no way do I want to argue my point here, I am only informing you of the Southern Baptist position. As SB we do not sprinkle infants, we do have a Dedication of Infants and small children. This is where the parents stand before the Church with the Pastor. The Pastor reads Scripture and gives the parents a charge to be faithful Godly parents and raise their child under the teachings and Lordship of Jesus Christ. The parents say the name of the child and agre to reais their child ina home where Jesus Christ is Lord and teach their child the Scriptures.

 

Baptism is for those who have made the choice to accepted the call of the Holy Spirit to become a Follower of Jesus Christ. Baptists believe baptism is a confession of a persons desire to become a Follower of Jesus Christ. Baptists immerse people under the water to symbolize that they are dying to sin, and coming out of the water they are being raised to new life. Jesus was baptised and we too follow His example. SB do not believe in baptismal regeneration.

 

Please do not take any thing I stated as an attack your beliefs on baptism. I expressed the Doctrine which I believe best represents my understanding of Scripture.There are far more things we have in common in Jesus Christ and that is what I prefer to focus on. God Bless.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus was baptised and we too follow His example.

 

I believe the reason for Christ's baptism of which there are three (water, Spirit and cup) is different than the reason we are baptized. So we may follow His example by getting wet; but the motivation behind the baptism is different.

 

I think it best to follow Christ's instructions which do not always align with His example. (I.E. He was baptized in Israel which most of us do not follow)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I believe the reason for Christ's baptism of which there are three (water, Spirit and cup) is different than the reason we are baptized. So we may follow His example by getting wet; but the motivation behind the baptism is different.

 

I think it best to follow Christ's instructions which do not always align with His example. (I.E. He was baptized in Israel which most of us do not follow)

 

Thank you for your reply.In Matthew 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; and Luke 3:21-22 all record the Baptism of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not baptized for the repentance of His sins as he was sinless, perfect in every way. Jesus Christ was showing His obedience to The Father, and the Father showed His approval by the the Holy Spirit coming down in the appearance of a dove for those present to see and record.

 

Being wet has nothing to do with baptism other that that's what happens to a person after immersion, the water is symbolic of the grave. IMO any person who claims that they are Follower of Jesus Christ and refuses to be baptized, has sufficient cause to question their salvation call. Blessings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As SB we do not sprinkle infants, we do have a Dedication of Infants and small children. This is where the parents stand before the Church with the Pastor. The Pastor reads Scripture and gives the parents a charge to be faithful Godly parents and raise their child under the teachings and Lordship of Jesus Christ. The parents say the name of the child and agre to reais their child ina home where Jesus Christ is Lord and teach their child the Scriptures.

 

That's called a dry baptism. ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If a person said they were baptized in the name of the father, Son, and Holy Spirit should Churches accept this persons baptism?

 

I don't understand the question, do you mean accept that they have been baptized (ie that they are telling the truth), or recognize their baptism as genuine?

 

What form did the baptism take - was it immersion?

 

When did it occur? Was upon profession of faith, or was it as an infant?

 

I need a little more to go on :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand the question, do you mean accept that they have been baptized (ie that they are telling the truth), or recognize their baptism as genuine?

 

What form did the baptism take - was it immersion?

 

When did it occur? Was upon profession of faith, or was it as an infant?

 

I need a little more to go on :D

 

 

I mean should we accept a person that was sprinkled? What if a church did not believe in baptismal regeneration, and that is how believed they were baptized? Should a Bapyist church accept a Roman Catholics baptism? Many SBC churches require that if a person were not baptized in a Baptist church they must be re-baptized.

 

This is serious issues for many different churches beyond just Baptist. I fully expect a reaction after making this clearer. I am not fully Calvinistic, I am a 4 pointer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

I think often people identify a person's baptism by the man or organization that baptized. In other words, your baptism is viewed as including all those doctrines that particular church believes. I don't care if Judas Iscariot baptized a person, as long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then it is a genuine baptism as if done by Jesus Christ.

 

For example,

  • John 3:22 After this Jesus and his disciples went into the Judean countryside, and he remained there with them and was baptizing.
  • John 4:1-2 Now when Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John 2 (although Jesus himself did not baptize, but only his disciples), he left Judea and departed again for Galilee.3

Notice John 3 first says Jesus was baptizing, and then later says Jesus himself did not baptize but only his disciples.

 

John Calvin:

Though Jesus himself baptized not. He gives the designation of Christ ’s Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God. Nor can it be doubted that, so long as he lived in the world, he abstained from the outward administration of the sign, for the express purpose of testifying to all ages, that Baptism loses nothing of its value when it is administered by a mortal man. In short, not only does Christ baptize inwardly by his Spirit, but the very symbol which we receive from a mortal man ought to be viewed by us in the same light as if Christ himself displayed his hand from heaven, and stretched it out to us. Now if the Baptism administered by a man is Christ’s Baptism, it will not cease to be Christ’s Baptism whoever be the minister. And this is sufficient for refuting the Anabaptists, who maintain that, when the minister is a wicked man, the baptism is also vitiated, and, by means of this absurdity, disturb the Church; as Augustine has very properly employed the same argument against the Donatists.

 

I think, as long as the baptism was done which means it was an actual baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit any doctrinal misunderstandings concerning baptism can be rectified without re-baptizing. That is, if someone holds novel views of baptism despite being baptized in the Trinity - a novel view which is contrary to the doctrines found in the catholic church, then it can be corrected at a later time apart from actually re-baptizing. I say re-baptize in this case, because the person clearly was baptized in the first place despite misconceptions which may be at odds with initiating them into the particular church they are entering but not the catholic church.

 

Lastly, some make a practice of re-baptizing every time they join a new church. Usually these churches reject the Nicene Creed which states:

  • Nicene Creed: And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins

Compare with:

  • Ephesians 4:4-6 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
I mean should we accept a person that was sprinkled?

 

I'll answer with a question. Would you reject another scriptural mode of baptism for your church's tradition?

 

If you agree with my previous post which makes the point that no differentiation should be made between the person baptizing and Jesus that baptizes, then to re-baptize for any reason communicates that Jesus made a mistake.

 

To argue against Roman infant baptism on the grounds of credo or professions of faith during immersed baptism seemingly conveys an adult form of the same baptismal regeneration (water and word) which guarantees salvation for the recipient at the time of immersion.

 

Again, if a person was baptized (any mode) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but holds a misconception, say, I am saved because of water baptism but later discovers that they were wrong should they be re-baptized?

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I mean should we accept a person that was sprinkled?

 

Well, in my opinion, that all depends. There is a world of difference between someone who is converted in (for example) a congregational church setting and who asks for baptism and is sprinkled in complete ignorance of the biblical method - because this is what he has been taught baptism is as opposed to someone who knows that it should be immersion - in the first situation I would explain the preferred means and leave it up to the consience of the individual.

 

What if a church did not believe in baptismal regeneration, and that is how believed they were baptized?

 

If a person believe's their baptism has saved them we have more problems to deal with then just the baptism - this is a gospel issue.

 

Should a Bapyist church accept a Roman Catholics baptism?

 

How can we, it is an infant baptism into a different faith, we may as well accept Muslims as being beliebers because they have said that Shahida

 

Many SBC churches require that if a person were not baptized in a Baptist church they must be re-baptized.

 

Well that is going to far in my opinion - to my mind a 'valid' baptism is one made one a credible profession faith in accordance with the light one had revealed to them at the time, and preferably by immersion in water.

 

This is serious issues for many different churches beyond just Baptist. I fully expect a reaction after making this clearer. I am not fully Calvinistic, I am a 4 pointer.

 

I'm sure it is - not sure where the Calvinist thing comes in though. He was not a credo baptist and just as an aside there is no such thing as a 4 point Calvinist, the term is amyraldian :D but that's a topic for another day - i hope my post helps to answer your question?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think often people identify a person's baptism by the man or organization that baptized. In other words, your baptism is viewed as including all those doctrines that particular church believes. I don't care if Judas Iscariot baptized a person, as long as it was done in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit then it is a genuine baptism as if done by Jesus Christ.

 

Were the baptism on the day of pentecost 'genuine', as they seem only to have been done in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38)?

 

Just to be clear, every person I have baptized I have baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as believe that is the ideal, but I'm not sure why this would be the only criteria to judge a baptism by. Why is this statement of Matt 28:19 more binding then the one in Act 2:41 that spells out faith must come first?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
Just to be clear, every person I have baptized I have baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit as believe that is the ideal, but I'm not sure why this would be the only criteria to judge a baptism by.

 

Do you see baptism as a statement made by you (man) the baptizer? Seems we have a different understanding of baptism (sacrament vs ordinance).

 

Why is this statement of Matt 28:19 more binding then the one in Act 2:41 that spells out faith must come first?

 

Why does one need be "more" than the other?

  • Acts 2:41 41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

If baptism is not only a covenant sign but seal (Romans 4:11; Colossians 2:11-12), what makes you think that the three thousand souls added that day were only faithful adult individuals or heads of households but not including children of households? Acts 2:36-39 would include those Jews who understood covenant language.

 

For example,

  • Genesis 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you.
  • Acts 2:39 For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Do you think Acts 2 excluded covenant Jews which would identify the covenant language between Genesis 17:7 and Acts 2:39? Given that their children were recipients of the old covenant sign and seal before faith of their own could be expressed, but if now excluded why without explicit mention in the NT?

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean should we accept a person that was sprinkled?

 

I'll answer with a question. Would you reject another scriptural mode of baptism for your church's tradition?

 

If you agree with my previous post which makes the point that no differentiation should be made between the person baptizing and Jesus that baptizes, then to re-baptize for any reason communicates that Jesus made a mistake.

 

To argue against Roman infant baptism on the grounds of credo or professions of faith during immersed baptism seemingly conveys an adult form of the same baptismal regeneration (water and word) which guarantees salvation for the recipient at the time of immersion.

 

Again, if a person was baptized (any mode) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but holds a misconception, say, I am saved because of water baptism but later discovers that they were wrong should they be re-baptized?

 

God bless,

William

William, dear friend. When a pastor comes to a new church he surly has read to Doctrine statements of the church, Such has been my case. In one SBC church that only accepted baptisms of baptist churches. I disagreed with this, but agreed to abide with by it, and worked for change, but it never was.

 

I have sprinkled a woman in a hospital that was near death, she accepted Christ a few days before she died, but insisted she was baptized. She felt she had lived so badly she wanted to follow Christ as best she could for as long as she had.

 

Not speaking in any other way but just as a Follower of Christ Jesus here is my Biblical understanding. The most important thing about being baptized is that it is an outward confession of Christ the Lord now residing in the life of that person. The Holy Spirit now in that person after calling them to Christ. I may not being able to word this correctly for some, and I hope my words convey my true desire.

 

I personally thing its best to be immersed after one is genuinely saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ, in the Name of the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. I do not reject a persons mode baptism, as long as it was stated in the way I stated. I do not thing a infant baptism, is the same as believers baptism.

 

William, We do have some differences in our understandings, and by no means do I ever intend disrespect you or anyone here. I respect and love other Christians here. I always will believe that Jesus Christ and His ability to save us from our sins is the heart of the Gospel. I refuse to belittle or demean any outer denomination, or their doctrines. I am open to review my beliefs in Scripture and with prayer. When someone suggests I need to rethink a statement, or have said something offensive I will reconsider my thinking, apologize, or restate what I have said.

 

I hope I have not said something that has caused an issue for you William. I hope to be a man in which Christ is shown in what I post. God bless you and all in this forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
I mean should we accept a person that was sprinkled?

 

I'll answer with a question. Would you reject another scriptural mode of baptism for your church's tradition?

 

If you agree with my previous post which makes the point that no differentiation should be made between the person baptizing and Jesus that baptizes, then to re-baptize for any reason communicates that Jesus made a mistake.

 

To argue against Roman infant baptism on the grounds of credo or professions of faith during immersed baptism seemingly conveys an adult form of the same baptismal regeneration (water and word) which guarantees salvation for the recipient at the time of immersion.

 

Again, if a person was baptized (any mode) in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but holds a misconception, say, I am saved because of water baptism but later discovers that they were wrong should they be re-baptized?

 

God bless,

William

Quit being so apologetic for disagreeing with me or anyone brother :) In no way have I ever perceived you as being disrespectful to me or others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...