Would I be admitted?

[ImaginaryDay2]

A true scenario:
My parents had me baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian church (PCUSA), obviously without my "consent". This was "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". I was not submerged in a pool, but rather sprinkled or some such method. I was (at some point) "confirmed" and made a member, albeit a pretty poor one.

Years later, I was baptised again, as I became convinced by some rather zealous Pentecostals that the first one didn't count. I was fully immersed, however this was done "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", rather than a Trinitarian formula, as these good folks denied Trinitarian doctrine.

Question - given these facts, would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?

 

[MoreCoffee]

A true scenario:
My parents had me baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian church (PCUSA), obviously without my "consent". This was "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". I was not submerged in a pool, but rather sprinkled or some such method. I was (at some point) "confirmed" and made a member, albeit a pretty poor one.

Years later, I was baptised again, as I became convinced by some rather zealous Pentecostals that the first one didn't count. I was fully immersed, however this was done "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", rather than a Trinitarian formula, as these good folks denied Trinitarian doctrine.

Question - given these facts, would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?

My guess is no because your baptism was infant baptism and the other thing, the oneness Pentecostal baptism isn't Trinitarian so both "don't count" and you'd need to be baptised again.

 

[MennoSota]

A true scenario:
My parents had me baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian church (PCUSA), obviously without my "consent". This was "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". I was not submerged in a pool, but rather sprinkled or some such method. I was (at some point) "confirmed" and made a member, albeit a pretty poor one.

Years later, I was baptised again, as I became convinced by some rather zealous Pentecostals that the first one didn't count. I was fully immersed, however this was done "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", rather than a Trinitarian formula, as these good folks denied Trinitarian doctrine.

Question - given these facts, would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?

What do you receive from scripture regarding this inquiry?
In my church the deaconate would listen to your testimony and vote on membership. We would consider whether you were saved and whether the baptism you had truly expressed the reality of you being immersed into Christ. If your baptism by a cult bothered you and you doubt its authenticity then we would consider a rebaptism (anabaptist). If you considered it genuine we would likely consider it genuine as well.

 

[Lamb]

What do you receive from scripture regarding this inquiry?
In my church the deaconate would listen to your testimony and vote on membership. We would consider whether you were saved and whether the baptism you had truly expressed the reality of you being immersed into Christ. If your baptism by a cult bothered you and you doubt its authenticity then we would consider a rebaptism (anabaptist). If you considered it genuine we would likely consider it genuine as well.

A trinitarian baptism is not required by Baptists? I was always told differently.

 

[MennoSota]

A trinitarian baptism is not required by Baptists? I was always told differently.

There are different denominations of Baptists. Others may decide differently. I cannot speak for them.
Would a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church accept a baptism from another denominations?

 

[Lamb]

There are different denominations of Baptists. Others may decide differently. I cannot speak for them.
Would a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran Church accept a baptism from another denominations?

Here is what the WELS website states: https://wels.net/faq/need-to-be-baptized-again/

If I was raised and baptized in a Baptist church and switched to a WELS church, would I need to get baptized again? The reason I'm asking is because I know that Lutherans have a different belief on baptism and how it works.

There would not be a need to be baptized again. While Baptist theology misunderstands the purpose and blessings of baptism, the baptism of such churches is a valid baptism. Water is applied in the name of the Triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That constitutes a valid baptism.

What would be necessary to join one of our congregations is to attend and complete a course of Bible information classes. Upon completion of the classes and, God willing, your profession that the information presented is what Scripture teaches, you would be confirmed as an adult. That would establish your membership in one of our congregations.

God guide and bless your study of his word!

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Interesting responses. I was curious because of the mention of baptism and its purpose in another thread, but was thinking a bit more globally about it afterward. The Lutheran church I joined had no issue as it considered my infant baptism valid. I'm not sure how they would consider my adult baptism without a Trinitarian formula. It was not considered symbolic, but "regenerative" - being "baptized into Christ" or "putting on Christ" as it were. I know some would disagree with that - I don't. However, I would (now) consider it invalid because of the Trinitarian issue. My infant baptism I consider completely valid. So that would probably present many issues with certain churches/denoms, not just Baptist.

 

[NewCreation435]

A true scenario:
My parents had me baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian church (PCUSA), obviously without my "consent". This was "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit". I was not submerged in a pool, but rather sprinkled or some such method. I was (at some point) "confirmed" and made a member, albeit a pretty poor one.

Years later, I was baptised again, as I became convinced by some rather zealous Pentecostals that the first one didn't count. I was fully immersed, however this was done "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", rather than a Trinitarian formula, as these good folks denied Trinitarian doctrine.

Question - given these facts, would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?

It largely depends on what the by laws of that individual church says. If it is specific that the baptism has to be immersion and in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit then no. I think you would find that most larger Baptist churches are just gonna be glad you joined and not be that picky about it though. Not all Baptist are the same and even though I have been technically a member of a baptist church for over 33 years I cannot generalize and say all Baptist churches would grant you membership. If you have a specific church in mind then I would ask that pastor if you specifically have to be immersed. When I switched from Methodist to Baptist I was baptized by immersion after I joined the Baptist church, but nobody told me I had to
They would allow you to take part in the Lord's Supper though as most observe open communion

 

[MennoSota]

Interesting responses. I was curious because of the mention of baptism and its purpose in another thread, but was thinking a bit more globally about it afterward. The Lutheran church I joined had no issue as it considered my infant baptism valid. I'm not sure how they would consider my adult baptism without a Trinitarian formula. It was not considered symbolic, but "regenerative" - being "baptized into Christ" or "putting on Christ" as it were. I know some would disagree with that - I don't. However, I would (now) consider it invalid because of the Trinitarian issue. My infant baptism I consider completely valid. So that would probably present many issues with certain churches/denoms, not just Baptist.

It depends on if one believes their infant baptism saved them and set them as an adopted child of God.
The utter lack of any infant baptism anywhere in scripture should give us pause in this regard.
We are children of the promise. Our being chosen is along the path of Abraham, not by virtue of a water sprinkle at a church somewhere.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It depends on if one believes their infant baptism saved them and set them as an adopted child of God.

Which I do, and would probably set me apart from many Baptist (and most Anabaptist) denoms

The utter lack of any infant baptism anywhere in scripture should give us pause in this regard.

I understand that. However, studying the issue apart from direct reference brought me to the conclusion that it did, in fact, happen

We are children of the promise. Our being chosen is along the path of Abraham, not by virtue of a water sprinkle at a church somewhere.

And I agree. There is nothing special about the water, but in the obedience to the commandment, where God extends His grace to us. I fully understand this does not align with your views (or how you view scripture on the matter)

 

[MennoSota]

Which I do, and would probably set me apart from many Baptist (and most Anabaptist) denoms



I understand that. However, studying the issue apart from direct reference brought me to the conclusion that it did, in fact, happen



And I agree. There is nothing special about the water, but in the obedience to the commandment, where God extends His grace to us. I fully understand this does not align with your views (or how you view scripture on the matter)

God doesn't extend his grace because your parents performed a ritualistic baptism on you as an infant. That's not grace if it was merited by your parents following the churches prescription. That's just not grace. That's works. The Bible is very clear that God chooses to ransom whomever He wills, not whomever gets baptized as an infant or as an adult and thus expects that God has ransomed them.
We must follow what the Bible teaches, not what church denominations have prescribed.

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Post #1 (ImaginaryDay2):
My parents had me baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian church (PCUSA)...

Years later, I was baptised again... I was fully immersed, however this was done "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", rather than a Trinitarian formula...

Question - given these facts, would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?

Post #2:
My guess is no because your baptism was infant baptism and the other thing, the oneness Pentecostal baptism isn't Trinitarian so both "don't count" and you'd need to be baptised again.

Post #3 [emphasis added]:
What do you receive from scripture regarding this inquiry?
In my church the deaconate would listen to your testimony and vote on membership. We would consider whether you were saved and whether the baptism you had truly expressed the reality of you being immersed into Christ. If your baptism by a cult bothered you and you doubt its authenticity then we would consider a rebaptism (anabaptist). If you considered it genuine we would likely consider it genuine as well.

==============================================================================================

I would suggest that ImaginaryDay2 need not be concerned. What does Scripture tell us about this matter? The Bible tells us that the Apostles were cult members as well. As was everybody else in the Apostolic Church. That’s what the Bible says.

Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:36,48; Acts 19:5; Romans 6:3.

Some time ago, the poster named “visionary” brought to our attention the admission by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) that the trinitarian baptismal formula as recorded in Matthew 28:19, was actually not a statement spoken by Jesus:
“The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.

The basis for the trinitarian baptismal formula is thus shown to be deliberately false. The Apostolic Church never used it. False words were put into Jesus’ mouth by a deliberate and reprehensible insertion into the Holy Bible.

(Therefore, a truly Biblical church will welcome ImaginaryDay2 based on his second baptism. And who would want to belong to a church that wasn’t truly Biblical?)

But will that revelation of deliberate falsehood make any difference to entrenched doctrine and practice? Any real difference? Only if Biblical Truth is given preeminence.

==============================================================================================

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

God doesn't extend his grace because your parents performed a ritualistic baptism on you as an infant. That's not grace if it was merited by your parents following the churches prescription.That's just not grace. That's works.

Anyone who follows a "prescription" follows out of obedience. All my parents did was walk to the front. All the guy in the cool robe did was get me wet. God did the work. Same as taking a Tylenol for a headache. I don't take credit for relieving my own headache - it was a physical response to the active ingredients. All I did was follow directions. And whether one accepts that baptism merits grace or not, baptism as an outward sign is still obedience to the word. What does that merit you? A few things - church membership and admission to the Lords table, if I've understood you correctly.

The Bible is very clear that God chooses to ransom whomever He wills, not whomever gets baptized as an infant or as an adult and thus expects that God has ransomed them.

I'd agree, but with a different spin - the "faith and good works" thread is covering this one.

We must follow what the Bible teaches, not what church denominations have prescribed.

Agreed

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

==============================================================================================

Post #1 (ImaginaryDay2):
My parents had me baptised as an infant in the Presbyterian church (PCUSA)...

Years later, I was baptised again... I was fully immersed, however this was done "in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins", rather than a Trinitarian formula...

Question - given these facts, would I be welcome into membership and be able to commune with churches that are part of most mainline Baptist conventions (e.g. SBC)?

Post #2:
My guess is no because your baptism was infant baptism and the other thing, the oneness Pentecostal baptism isn't Trinitarian so both "don't count" and you'd need to be baptised again.

Post #3 [emphasis added]:
What do you receive from scripture regarding this inquiry?
In my church the deaconate would listen to your testimony and vote on membership. We would consider whether you were saved and whether the baptism you had truly expressed the reality of you being immersed into Christ. If your baptism by a cult bothered you and you doubt its authenticity then we would consider a rebaptism (anabaptist). If you considered it genuine we would likely consider it genuine as well.

==============================================================================================

I would suggest that ImaginaryDay2 need not be concerned. What does Scripture tell us about this matter? The Bible tells us that the Apostles were cult members as well. As was everybody else in the Apostolic Church. That’s what the Bible says.

Acts 2:38; Acts 8:16; Acts 10:36,48; Acts 19:5; Romans 6:3.

Some time ago, the poster named “visionary” brought to our attention the admission by Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) that the trinitarian baptismal formula as recorded in Matthew 28:19, was actually not a statement spoken by Jesus:
“The basic form of our (Matthew 28:19 Trinitarian) profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text (Matthew 28:19) came from the city of Rome.” — Joseph Ratzinger (pope Benedict XVI) Introduction to Christianity: 1968 edition, pp. 82, 83.

The basis for the trinitarian baptismal formula is thus shown to be deliberately false. The Apostolic Church never used it. False words were put into Jesus’ mouth by a deliberate and reprehensible insertion into the Holy Bible.

(Therefore, a truly Biblical church will welcome ImaginaryDay2 based on his second baptism. And who would want to belong to a church that wasn’t truly Biblical?)

But will that revelation of deliberate falsehood make any difference to entrenched doctrine and practice? Any real difference? Only if Biblical Truth is given preeminence.

==============================================================================================

Not ignoring this. I'll come back to it

 

[MennoSota]

Anyone who follows a "prescription" follows out of obedience. All my parents did was walk to the front. All the guy in the cool robe did was get me wet. God did the work.

Here's the thing. God didn't do anything at your infant baptism. That is just a dogma of your church, not a promise from God.

Same as taking a Tylenol for a headache. I don't take credit for relieving my own headache - it was a physical response to the active ingredients. All I did was follow directions.

Those directions for infant baptism are from your church, not from God.

And whether one accepts that baptism merits grace or not, baptism as an outward sign is still obedience to the word.

Meriting something means that grace did not exist in that action. You cannot merit grace. It's an oxymoron statement to say that you can.

What does that merit you? A few things - church membership and admission to the Lords table, if I've understood you correctly.

Again, this is just your church dogma speaking, not God.

So, back to faith and good works.
Faith is a gift, given by God, not because you merit this gift, but so you might accomplish the good works God already planned for you to accomplish. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

 

[Josiah]

Meriting something means that grace did not exist in that action. You cannot merit grace. It's an oxymoron statement to say that you can.

When I was baptized (within a minute of my emergency C-Section very premature birth) I was not conscience and not breathing.... tell me what work I did in baptism?


Now, if you want to insist the the PRIEST did something, yes. But I don't agree that if a Christian DOES anything, ergo God is rendered impotent to bless. And I don't think you believe that either or you would forbid any to preach/teach the Gospel, you'd forbid Sunday School and mission work and evangelism, you'd condemn Billy Graham for preaching at all those Crusades he worked so hard on.

So, back to faith and good works.
Faith is a gift, given by God, not because you merit this gift, but so you might accomplish the good works God already planned for you to accomplish. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Yup. But that doesn't mean that God sins when HE works. And it doesn't mean that Christians sin when they do as God has told them to do (even though DOING usually involves work on their part).

 

[MennoSota]

When I was baptized (within a minute of my emergency C-Section very premature birth) I was not conscience and not breathing.... tell me what work I did in baptism?

Zero. Neither did God do any work in your infant baptism. It is purely church dogma.

Now, if you want to insist the the PRIEST did something, yes. But I don't agree that if a Christian DOES anything, ergo God is rendered impotent to bless. And I don't think you believe that either or you would forbid any to preach/teach the Gospel, you'd forbid Sunday School and mission work and evangelism, you'd condemn Billy Graham for preaching at all those Crusades he worked so hard on.

I would state that God can do as He wills, but we cannot dictate that God must do as we demand.

Yup. But that doesn't mean that God sins when HE works. And it doesn't mean that Christians sin when they do as God has told them to do (even though DOING usually involves work on their part).

I don't even know what your comments are referring to.

 

[Josiah]

I would state that God can do as He wills, but we cannot dictate that God must do as we demand.

I agree. So it is wrong to dictate to God that presenting the Gospel will result in faith (some would say it usually doesn't). But can use the presenting of the Gospel as His means to convey faith and His blessings? I"d say yes.

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. BELIEVING is not the same thing as DEMANDING.


I realize you stand with the Anabaptists who in the 16th Century suddenly came up with this idea that Baptism is ineffectual, and we disagree on that (a subject for another day and thread). But that's not my point: my point is that GOD using something does not make it a "GOOD WORK" that self uses. I didn't use ANYTHING when I was baptized... but I do agree some Christians did. But go to any Sunday School and you'll see Christians doing things... doesn't mean that ergo we are justified by the good works that Christians do.

 

[MennoSota]

I agree. So it is wrong to dictate to God that presenting the Gospel will result in faith (some would say it usually doesn't). But can use the presenting of the Gospel as His means to convey faith and His blessings? I"d say yes.

I think you are creating a false dichotomy. BELIEVING is not the same thing as DEMANDING.


I realize you stand with the Anabaptists who in the 16th Century suddenly came up with this idea that Baptism is ineffectual, and we disagree on that (a subject for another day and thread). But that's not my point: my point is that GOD using something does not make it a "GOOD WORK" that self uses. I didn't use ANYTHING when I was baptized... but I do agree some Christians did. But go to any Sunday School and you'll see Christians doing things... doesn't mean that ergo we are justified by the good works that Christians do.

I am not saying that God using an instrument (human) to convey His truth thus makes the response of another person a human work. I am saying that only God, himself, can activate that ability to believe. God must make the person alive in Christ for that person to act in belief.
Upon believing a person may call for baptism. But, you cannot baptize a dead man and expect that such an action will make that man (or infant) come to life.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Zero. Neither did God do any work in your infant baptism.

This idea of the passivity and impotence of God is alarming