Lifeway Poll Reveals Concerns on Baptism

Tim,

I would argue three things here. One, I would argue that the 74% figure shows that the majority of Baptist pastors have an insufficient view of baptism or a misinformed understanding of Arminian theology or both. On what basis, other than baptist tradition, do we require rebaptism. If Baptism means what we say that it means in the BFM, then there is no grounds to rebaptize a born-again believer who has been immersed after conversion to Christ?

Two, is not 26% a significant enough minority to demonstrate that the IMB personnel guidelines are a excessive? The guidelines go well beyond the BFM2000. Our statement of faith allows for this minority view. To restrict missionary service in this way goes against the practice of 1/4 of our SBC churches. That is no small minority.

Finally, the fact that a majority hold a particular doctrinal opinion, does not mean that those who hold that position wish to restrict missionary service to only those who agree with them. Lifeway studies have shown that 90% of SBC pastors are not Calvinist and 63% are “concerned” with the rise of Calvinism in the Convention. By your reasoning, the IMB should hurry up and add Calvinists to the list of faithful Southern Baptists who cannot serve on the mission field.

– Todd

Tim

Thanks for the post. I find the numbers interesting but I confess I have little confidence in them. Until I’m satisfied Lifeway has, in place, an industry standard review system which screens their methodology in statistical analysis, I’ll be excessively cautious in using their numbers.

On another note, Todd feels the numbers demonstrate the “majority of Baptist pastors have an insufficient view of baptism or a misinformed understanding of Arminian theology or both.” I suppose that implies–in order to fix it–we need informed, intelligent men to straighten out all of us poor, ignorant and insufficiently studied SB pastors.

Especially should that unbalanced bunch of theological buffoons known as “trustees” of the IMB be seriously examined as to their obvious and odious “insufficient” view of baptism. Todd is a PhD guy. Maybe he can help.

Or, again, if “restrict[ing] missionary service in this way goes against the practice of 1/4 of our SBC churches…[which is] no small minority” is correct, then it seems to follow that it also means that not restricting missionary service in this way goes against the practice of 3/4 of our SBC churches. And that is no small majority.

I wonder if 3/4 of Southern Baptists voted allowing charismatic practice on the mission field would make a difference in the rhetoric of those who argue for such. I wonder if 3/4 of Southern Baptists voted for the 2nd London Confession to be our new confession would make a difference in how our Calvinist brothers argued their case.

For some reason 3/4 sounds so much more decisive than 1/4. But then again, I did not so so well in college math.

I trust both you and our Todd have a great day, Tim. With that, I am…

Peter

Brother Todd,

Thanks for your comments. You certainly are entitled to your disagreement with me, that is the reason we call ourselves Baptist.

I would like to point out some items I believe are flaws in your analysis. First, if your view that the 74% figure shows that the majority of Baptist pastors have an insufficient view of baptism or a misinformed understanding of Arminian theology or both. is correct, and I do not believe that it is, then that makes no difference. If you remember during the CR the Peace Committee dealt with a motion about dividing the seminaries to allow some a moderate bend and others a more conservative bend. As Dr. Cecil Sherman quotes in his book on page 204, the late Dr. Adrian Rogers responded, This is just saying that our professors who work for us must teach according to our beliefs. Brother Todd, it is the same concept with our Missionaries. The trustees are charged with the responsibility to make certain that the majority of SB beliefs are represented. This may be the basic disagreement between everyone. What is the job of the Trustee when there are such vast beliefs within the SBC? I say they are to hold fast the majority when it comes to doctrinal beliefs. Also, if you remember, we were told that this Baptismal Guideline was a result of Landmark theology held by a small group of trustees. It is clear from this LifeWay poll that 74% of SB pastors believe one baptized in a church that does not hold to eternal security should be baptized when coming to a SB church. There is no way 74% of SB are Landmark.

Brother Peter,

As always you make some great points.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

Thanks for letting me disagree

I do find your first statement to be a bit ironic: “You certainly are entitled to your disagreement with me, that is the reason we call ourselves Baptist.” If disagreement is why we call ourselves Baptist, why are we making policies that do not allow for disagreement?

On your further comments, your historical analysis actually supports my point. The disagreement on doctrinal issues among seminary professors was made possible because of the wording of the BFM. The necessary step to bring the seminaries in accordance with the beliefs of Southern Baptists was a change in the BFM. The BFM2000 revision focused on those important issues such as the criterion for biblical interpretation, the exclusivity of the gospel, the sovereignty and omniscience of God, etc. These are the very issues that were at stake in the seminaries.

On tertiary issues, however, the seminaries even now do not require professors to teach only those positions on which a majority of Southern Baptists agree. On Southern’s campus, for example, you will find disagreements on doctrinal issues on which one could argue there is a clear majority among Southern Baptists. Such issues include the extent of the atonement, the order of end times events, the role of the Law in the New Testament, and, yes, even whether Arminians should be rebaptized.

If a doctrine, held by the majority, is of sufficient importance to allow no disagreement in the seminaries or to deny missionary appointment, such an issue should be added to the BFM (of course, I would not support such an addition). Further, any doctrine not affirmed by the BFM should not be added as an additional requirement by the trustees of any of our agencies.

Further, while the majority of churches may require the rebaptism of Arminians, there does not seem to be an indication that the majority of Baptists want the our trustees to limit service in this way. If this is such a good idea and held by the majority of Southern Baptists, why have the NAMB trustees and other agency trustees not followed suit?

– Todd

p.s. Out of curiosity, do you disagree with my understanding of the meaning of Baptism, my assessment of Arminian theology, both, or neither?

Not to put too fine a point to it–but the unspoken presupposition seems to be that the Holy Spirit always speaks through a majority vote, or at least a majority poll or consensus. Somehow I doubt that prophets like Elijah would agree, or even Stephen, maybe even Jesus. If we can agree that the Spirit is not always evident in polls even if they acurately represent their constituancy, and that even the best theologians are not always inerrant, can we agree that policies should be sufficiently broad (even sufficiently vague) to allow for differences in practice and in theology on non-primary issues? I am not suggesting that all theology should be thrown out. There must be certain criteria on which a denomination (or a convention of churches, whatever) agree, but why should those criteria exceed things like the identity of Jesus, the Trinity, the inspiration of the Bible (things which have defined orthodox Christianity for many hundreds of years), and the historic Baptist distinctives of the priesthood of the believer, soul competency, and religious freedom?

Ready to be assaulted by friend and foe alike,

John

Brother Todd,

I do not want to get off base with my post here. Thus, I will answer you with one statement for the sake of discussion, but I believe we need to keep our comments pertaining to the post. You said; The disagreement on doctrinal issues among seminary professors was made possible because of the wording of the BFM. The wording of the BF&M ’63 certainly left much to be desired especially concerning the criterion for interpreting the scripture. However, we must remember that the CR produced its most bountiful fruit by 1992 a full eight years before the BF&M2K. Professors at SEBTS were signing that they would teach in “accordance with and not contrary to” the Abstract not the BF&M. I remember observing a faculty meeting where the late Dr. Russ Bush defined the Abstracts and a number of Professors shouted out, almost in unison, I did not sign that document. That faculty meeting took place in 1991–nine years before the BF&M2k

You also said; “If a doctrine, held by the majority, is of sufficient importance to allow no disagreement in the seminaries… No one has argued for there being no disagreement. My point is that the IMB Trustees were clearly following the majority of SB beliefs on baptism when they adopted these guidelines. If you remember it was yelled from the tops of lungs of some that this was a Landmark takeover from a small group of trustees. This is my point for this article. The majority of SB pastors hold this doctrinal viewpoint, something the IMB Trustees said they were trying to follow.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother BT,

Your points are well defined and precisely what I am trying to say. Your statement; Thus, if someone has not experienced baptism as defined in this article, then that person should not be accepted as a church member and should not be allowed to participate in the Lord’s Supper. is defined exactly as the BF&M ’25, ’63, and 2K have it worded. Nothing has changed from the original BF&M. This even strengthens my thesis. If we have always agreed that Baptism by immersion is an identification with the Lord Jesus, then we must affirm eternal security and reject any baptism that does not affirm such. Why? Because we are identifying with Jesus, not our interpretation of the doctrine of Baptism.

Brother Todd,

As for where you and I disagree I cannot clearly articulate that for you. It seems that I wrote the original article and you responded that you disagree with me through three arguments.

Seriously, you have placed Arminian theology and the meaning of baptism as the place of disagreement you want me to answer. However, my point of the article is not on either. My point is the IMB Trustees are justified with their Guideline because this poll clearly points to a overwhelming majority of SB pastors that practice the Guideline in their churches.

Blessings,
Tim

Todd, the following comes from the official Assemblies of God website:

“Do Christians receive the Holy Spirit when they are saved? If so, how is this experience different from the baptism in the Holy Spirit? Yes, when persons accept Christ, the Holy Spirit begins a great work in their lives. The Spirit convicts them of sin, convinces them of righteousness, and dwells within them (John 6:44; 14:17; Roman 8:9; 1 Corinthians 12:13). No one becomes a Christian without this gracious work of the Holy Spirit. However, there is an additional and distinct ministry of the Holy Spirit called the baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Baptism is an empowering gift from God the Father that is promised to every believer. . . . There need not be a great lapse of time between conversion (receiving Christ as Savior) and the baptism in the Holy Spirit. However, a person must first be a believer. This Baptism is not for unbelievers. First, the Holy Spirit comes to convict a person of sin and to reveal Christ as Savior. Then He comes to fill the life with spiritual power for gospel service and victorious Christian living. The one encounter of the Spirit is to regenerate; the other is to empower. The two are not identical; they are logically sequential; but one encounter may follow the other very closely. Many believers can testify to having come to Christ as Savior, and then moments later having met Him as the Baptizer in the Spirit. It is quite in order, assuming the presence of proper understanding, to lead a new convert into the baptism in the Holy Spirit. . . . Millions of believers worldwide share the exact testimony: when they initially were baptized in the Holy Spirit they spoke in unknown tongues. This is the truth which Pentecostals consistently affirm.”

Notice how different our concept of Spirit baptism is in the 2000 BFM: “At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.” We cannot base our baptismal policies on the extremely errant views of the Assemblies of God.

Brother Tim,

It does appear that most of the Pastors agree on baptism. What is somewhat troubling is the 16% that would not accept an SBC church baptism as good enough for their folks. That is bizarre just to think about.

Blessings,
Chris

I am at my regular job so I can’t weigh in much on this conversation but here is a scenario:

I have always practiced believer’s baptism by immersion as outlined in the BFM2K with one exception. I once baptized a man by having him in the baptistry and pouring water over him. The reason was that he had a tracheotomy (sp?) and his Doctor advised against immersion.

Overlooking the probability the the IMB would decline him for health reasons. Would this believer be permitted to serve as one of our missionaries?

I’m not weighing in on either side but I would be curious for each to respond to this scenario.

With that I am not Peter but Chuck

I have a couple of observations.

1) It is amazing to me that you want to declare the IMB policies on baptism justified because because a majority of SB pastors would rebaptize someone previously baptized in a church that does not accept eternal security.

Does that also mean that you think the policy on PPL should be reversed, since Lifeway (same research house) demonstrated conclusively that a majority of SB’ers do not agree with that one.

We love statistics when they support us. We ignore them when they don’t.

2) You argue that a few churches not requiring immersion justifies the policies. But the BF&M clearly says we practice immersion and the IMB is justified to require immersion without the draconic and landmarkish policies they adopted.

Finally, it hardly needs to be said that the truth is not derived from polls but from revelation. I reject the BI baptism doctrine because it is not supported in scripture, whether it is popular or not.

Brother BT,

I am not sure I follow your response. In a baptism, there is always a person that is the baptizer and the one that receives the baptism. My point is pretty simple. There is clear evidence in scripture where the command to be baptized was done where a lot of people were present (Jerusalem) and then where very few were present (part of the jail where water was available, homes where water was available, side of road where water was available). I’m not sure that the “church at the chariot” beyond Philip and the Eunuch would qualify as part of their congregation (some may try to assume that, but scripture is silent). What we do know is that the Eunuch realized that Christ was his salvation and then he requested to be baptized in obedience to knowing that messiah,…and Philip’s response was instant and clear, as ours should be as well.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother BT, I agree….it is impossible to have a true baptism not connected to the church of Jesus Christ. Philip knew that, Paul knew that, I would say all of the Apostles were certain of that as well. They proved that by simply baptizing people that confessed Christ. They also prove throughout the letters that their requirements for obedience to Christ’s command to baptize were few….confession, then act. We would do well to learn from the Apostles.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Dave,

You said; “draconic and landmarkish policies they adopted. Thus, are you saying that 74% of SB pastors have draconic and landmarkish theology because they do not accept the baptism of someone coming from a church that does not believe in eternal security?

While you may reject this guideline, which is your right, you really cannot rely on scripture for your rejection. There is a place where re-baptism was performed because of the defective understanding of the gospel. Though John-the-Baptist baptized these disciples (thus, we know the proper mode was given) Paul re-baptized them because their understanding of the gospel was defective, thus their baptism was defective.

I am not trying to be antognistic. I honeslty am trying to help you see there are many SB pastors out there that support the baptism guideline.

Brother Robin,

I love you, but I believe you have fallen into the mud hole of this argument. You say; “I can’t speak for anyone else, but again, for me personally, I don’t believe these surveys should be used as a barometer for IMB policies.” No one has pushed that surveys be used as barometers for IMB policies. I have merely pointed to the fact that 76% of SB pastors practice not accepting church members from other churches that do not believe in eternal security without being baptized. This survey was taken from 778 SB pastors while the other survey you point to is made up of approximately 400 pastors. Huge difference in the pool. We did not accept the PPL study for various reasons and one of them being such a low number of SB pastors.

Blessings,
Tim

Tim

You said, “I believe you have fallen into the mud hole of this argument.”

That may or may not be correct, but where do you think that blind hog finds his acorn?

I think your right BT,… Philip was a mover,..most the earliest evangelist were tied to Jerusalem.

Tim is trying to get Philip a job in Samaria

Blessings,
Chris

Todd,
Thanks for the thoughtful article. The problem with the IMB policy as I understand it is that the policy has the function of including a belief in eternal security as a prerequisite to scriptural baptism. Are we suggesting that if a person is baptized by immersion after conversion in an AG church or a Nazarene church that this is not a scriptural baptism? To require a prospective missionary to be baptized under these criteria goes beyond the New Testament understanding of baptistm in my opinion. Baptism signifies our identification with Christ in His death and resurrection, not our position on perseverance.

Also, it is shocking to think that SBC pastors would accept those for membership who have not been immersed. It is certainly appropriate for the IMB to insist that missionary candidates have been immersed. However, this is different than requiring a belief in eternal security since immersion is the New Testament pattern and central to the very symbolism of baptism.

Robin,

I didn’t read the comments before I commented, so my comment was directed at Tim’s post.

I think you and I are making the same point. I don’t think polls determine truth.

I referenced that you good folks had negated the effect of the PPL survey as an authority for SBC conduct. But, in his post, Tim was using this survey as a reason to support the IMB policies.

My point is that you can’t have it both ways. You can use the surveys that support you and ignore the ones you don’t like

I think we agree that polls and surveys can be instructive, but they are not authoritative.

Brother Tim,

You said:
However, if 26% said they would not require baptism, then that means that 74% of Southern Baptist pastors would not accept the baptism of someone coming from another church that does not believe in eternal security as being scriptural. This means that the IMB was correct in placing the guidelines on baptism in place because the overwhelming majority of SBC pastors believe a person baptized in a church that does not believe in eternal security has not experienced a scriptural baptism.

I am actually hesitant to post this question for fear that it will sound harsh… it is not meant to be so. However, I would like to ask:

Since the IMB BOT acted in unity with the current practice all but 26% of SBC churches, what should the 26% do?

Either the IMB BOT is willing to cooperate with this minority and send their qualified missionary candidates or they should leave the convention? Or is there another solution? What do you suggest?

Apologies if you have answered this question in the comment stream. I did not have time to read them all.

Peace to you brother,
From the Middle East

Furthermore,…it seems to me that Apostle Paul didn’t have any issue walking into “autonomous” fellowships and gently confronting the Leadership on these types of issues. Something, I might add, that is important and healthy for the church that is serious about the gospel. Pastors are not Apostles, but as Timothy and Titus and others were given instruction, there appears to be the precedent for this type of interaction with the church. Autonomy (extra-biblical concept, yet not heretical) is sort of automatic as the church forms locally to worship, disciple and evangelize, yet autonomy gets to much of a headline for the wrong reasons in today’s congregations. In other words, when would the Apostle Paul not be welcome at all in “your” church.

What we need these days is a proxy member of the IMB (seemingly a para-church organization with good motives) I vote for the Apostle Paul to show up at the board meeting and set thing in proper order…..

1 Corinthians 1:9-31 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (10) Now I exhort you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all agree and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. (11) For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloe’s people, that there are quarrels among you. (12) Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.” (13) Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (14) I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, (15) so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. (16) Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. (17) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. (18) For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (19) For it is written, “I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE.” (20) Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? (21) For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. (22) For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; (23) but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, (24) but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (25) Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (26) For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; (27) but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, (28) and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, (29) so that no man may boast before God. (30) But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption, (31) so that, just as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD.”

Paul is always clear to never diminish the faithfulness of God to those He is calling into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ. We on the other hand are simply kin to those Corinthians, willing to quarrel over “our” rights to baptize, …who should be doing it under the guardianship of someone with our pedigree (during Paul’s day, it was Paul, Apollos, Cephas). We just want someone to get it done the right way. In fact, the statistics show that quarreling is alive and well. Thank God, He has given us clear instruction to preach the gospel, so that we who boast, boast in the Lord,…not baptism. It much more obedient to baptize and not quarrel over it….which seems to be Paul’s point as well. We still have a lot of Pastors that love to boast about baptism.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Dave, Chris, FTME, & Anyone else who wants to know,

You all need to understand something about me that has not been shared before now. I am arguing for a policy that I do not practice personally. Yes, you read that correct! I do not practice having one be baptized that comes from a FWB or AoG church. That is something that our church says is a non-issue. Thus, we do not practice it.

However, I do see the argument and grasp the concept, as you can tell from my point in the argument. The purpose of this post was not to rehash the policy/guideline, but to point to the Stats that verified the position of the trustees. These trustees have been called every derogatory term you can imagine because they saw a situation and took proactive steps to alleviate it from becoming a bigger issue than it is.

Let me once again point you to the logic. If a person comes to my church from a church that does not believe in eternal security, I will not require that person to be baptized again. This person then applies for M status with the IMB. The IMB interviews this person and finds out that the person was baptized in a FWB church. These trustees on the interview committee have always known that a overwhelming majority of SB believe they should have been re-baptized. Thus, the trustees, within their rights, call for the baptism to be in a SB church because the majority of SB churches would not allow such a practice. What is wrong with this picture? Nothing! The trustees are implementing a practice that is common with the overwhelming majority of SB Churches. I, personally, would not have a problem with taking them back through the waters of baptism because it is an identification with Christ.

The 26% of churches, of which I find myself, continue in the way they have always practiced. Why? Because we are autonomous bodies and we do not take our directives from anyone but the Spirit of God. If this is something that needs to be changed, then the 26% will have to increase dramatically before I would be comfortable arguing for change to this policy.

Blessings,
Tim

Dave

You said, “My point is that you can’t have it both ways. You can use the surveys that support you and ignore the ones you don’t like.”

You and I agree. Therefore, as surveys may be instructive, they are not authoritative.

Robin

Tim,

What about when the missionary candidate IS the pastor (many missionary candidates come from the pastorate and not the congregation at large)? What kind of message does it send to a congregation for a pastor to ask someone else to baptize him b/c an outside agency deems his baptism to be invalid? No matter how you frame it, many in the congregation would not understand and the pastor would be in the position of affirming by example what he has rejected in his teaching. There are a number of other unintended consequences that could result from such an action.

Also, I know of three cases where the pastor(s) refused to rebaptize a candidate because such a rebaptism would be unbiblical. What does the M do now?

I could come up with a number of other hypothetical examples. But these two should suffice to make the point. I continue to maintain the baptism is a local church ordinance and that, as long as that baptism is consistent with the BFM, it should be accepted by all of our agencies.

Blessings,
Todd

Tim,

Actually, no. I stated that the baptism must be consistent with the BFM.

That would rule out any baptism of a non-believer, any baptism that is not by immersion, and any baptism that is sacramental.

What would not be ruled out would be baptisms that are consistent with the BFM, such as baptisms performed of believers, symbolically, by immersion in a church which did not affirm eternal security.

Blessings,
Todd

Brother Tim,

It seems that you are saying that since the local fellowships are failing, the only way to help them is to institute policy for their benefit.

So, in some sense it is not the church that is sending the missionary, it is becoming the policy making agency that is sending the missionary.

Isn’t it more accountable to have the church disciple and hold missionaries accountable. It seems horribly pragmatic to jump over the church in order to commission missionaries to enforce right pedigree.

Blessings,
Chris

The last sentance of the above comment was missing a “y”. Is should read “..church theY used…” Darn sticky keys on the key board.

Spurgeon made an eloquent comment on Romans 6:3-4:

“Baptism sets forth the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and our participation therein. Its teaching is twofold. First, think of our representative union with Christ, so that when he died and was buried it was on our behalf, and we were thus buried with him. This will give you the teaching of baptism so far as it sets forth a creed. . . . Baptism is an acknowledgment of our own death in Christ. Why should a living man be buried? Why should he even be buried because another died on his behalf? My burial with Christ means not only that he died for me, but that I died in him, so that my death with him needs a burial with him. . . . The next thought in baptism is burial. Death comes first, and burial follows. Now, what is burial, brethren? Burial is, first of all, the seal of death; it is the certificate of decease. ‘Is such a man dead?’ say you. Another answers, ‘Why, dear sir, he was buried a year ago.’ There have been instances of persons being buried alive, and I am afraid that the thing happens with sad frequency in baptism, but it is unnatural, and by no means the rule. I fear that many have been buried alive in baptism, and have therefore risen and walked out of the grave just as they were. But if burial is true, it is a certificate of death. If I am able to say in very truth, ‘I was buried with Christ thirty years ago,’ I must surely be dead. Certainly the world thought so, for not long after my burial with Jesus I began to preach his name, and by that time the world thought me very far gone, and said, ‘He stinketh.’ They began to say all manner of evil against the preacher; but the more I stank in their nostrils the better I liked it, for the surer I was that I was really dead to the world. It is good for a Christian to be offensive to wicked men. See how our Master stank in the esteem of the godless when they cried, ‘Away with him, away with him!’ Though no corruption could come near his blessed body, yet his perfect character was not savoured by that perverse generation. There must, then, be in us death to the world, and some of the effects of death, or our baptism is void. As burial is the certificate of death, so is burial with Christ the seal of our mortification to the world. But burial is, next, the displaying of death. While the man is indoors the passers-by do not know that he is dead; but when the funeral takes place, and he is carried through the streets, everybody knows that he is dead. This is what baptism ought to be. The believer’s death to sin is at first a secret, but by an open confession he bids all men know that he is dead with Christ. Baptism is the funeral rite by which death to sin is openly set forth before all men.”

Spurgeon, “Baptism—A Burial,” A Sermon (No. 1627) delivered on Sunday Morning, October 30th, 1881, at the Metropolitan Tabernacle, Newington.

Joe, it’s wrong because the group testimony is wrong. Baptism is not just an individual thing; it’s also a group thing. For example, when a person is immersed in a Church of Christ context, he may not understand everything about Church of Christ theology, but by being baptized in that context his testimony/confession is in error.

P.S.: Millard Erickson gave a relevant comment about the testimony of baptism:

“Baptism is a powerful form of proclamation of the truth of what Christ has done; it is a ‘word in water’ testifying to the believer’s participation in the death and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3-5). It is a symbol rather than merely a sign, for it is a graphic picture of the truth it conveys. There is no inherent connection between a sign and what it represents. It is only by convention, for example, that green traffic lights tell us to go rather than to stop. By contrast, the sign at a railroad crossing is more than a sign; it is also a symbol, for it is a rough picture of what it is intended to indicate, the crossing of a road and a railroad track. Baptism is a symbol, not a mere sign, for it actually pictures the believer’s death and resurrection with Christ.”

Erickson, Christian Theology, Second Edition (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 1110.

Thus, if immersion occurs in a Church of Christ context, the immersion loses its symbolic truth. The person being immersed in such an errant context is not identified with the once-for-all-time death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. He is not viewed as someone who has eternal life. The people who do not believe in eternity should be asked, “From what is he saved?” In their theology he is certainly not being saved from hell; rather, they believe he could very well end up there in the future. What does this type of immersion symbolize? It may symbolize Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection; but it certainly does not symbolize the believer’s death, burial, and resurrection with Christ. Thus, this type of immersion is errant and invalid.

BT

Thanks. I had been wondering that for sometime and had not seen anyone spell it out.

I completely disagree. You may have the final word. Thank you again.

The survey showed (as you report) that 4% of SBC Pastors would accept members from churches practicing pedo-baptism. That fact you say is sufficient to justify the IMB policy. Consider that this is only 4 out of each 100 SBC pastors. Ask how many member of the total new members joining SBC churches will come through those churches (4 of each 100) and you will have to agree that the likelihood of any of those new members becomning a candidate for IMB appointment is so infinitesimally small as to be totally non-infecting of the life stream of missionary service. The argument you present is therefore a no-brainer. I write this as one who is totally non-committed as to the debate which has gone be3tween the former trustee and the IMB. Such a debate is non-productive. But the survey as you state it has no weight in justification of either the trustee or the IMB.

Byron

Brother BT,

You said:
I have no problem calling their groups “churches.” I would not, however, call their groups “New Testament churches.”

Thank you for your perspective. Not sure I understand the distinction between “church” and “New Testament church.” This may go back to our discussion on the previous thread, but I see Scripture making no such distinction… in spite of some pretty serious doctrinal errors on the part of New Testament churches.

May His face shine upon you,
From the Middle East

“From the Middle East,” you are welcome.

Brother BT,

RE: Comment #66

We do agree on that!

Peace to you,
From the Middle East

“From the Middle East,” you have been very civil. I must admit that I have not always practiced what I am now preaching about civility. I was looking back at some things I had written on Wade’s blog a few years ago, and I noticed that I had expressed my opinion that Dr. Rankin lacked understanding about certain things, and I should have simply said that I disagreed with him. I’m sure he understands many things better than I do. I owe him a public apology, and I make it now. I apologize to you, Dr. Rankin. Sorry I’m so late in doing so.

Alan, none of us are saying that a belief in eternal security is required for salvation. All Christians do not have a proper understanding of eternal security when they are saved; some obviously do not. When they discover the truth, however, they should be willing to receive a biblical baptism (i.e., a baptism that gets the symbolism right). You said,

“Baptism is symbolic of the gospel: death, burial, resurrection, repentance from sin and faith in Christ.”

I don’t know if you have read all the comments in this thread, but it is clear from Romans 6:3-5 and our own 2000 Baptist Faith and Message that there is a connection between Christ’s once-for-all-time death, burial, and resurrection and our once-for-all-time death, burial, and resurrection. When someone is baptized in a context where eternal security is denied, then the connection is removed, and the symbolism is errant. Such a baptism is not biblical.

You know, I have went back and re-read the comments here and I find it, well, curious that there are posters (plural) who quote the BFM 2000 as if it is scripture. Now mind you, I have no disagreements with the document and it’s not a bad summary of biblical truth. I just have to giggle at myself when I read that and I would probably be considered by a lot of people to be one of those bible thumpin’ right-winges who would’ve suported the conservative resurgence had he been old enough to really be in denominational politics.

Brother BT,

Maybe I didn’t make myself as clear as I would have liked concerning obedience. Thank you for being patient with me…. I am not saying that baptism does not bring to light a multitude of things. Scripture gives us this picture over an over again. But, the reality of baptism is the obedience, not the picture show.

For instance, Peter is discussing an immersion that now saves you….that is not water. Some have made it appear that…but they missed the point of the gospel. Peter is consoling a frightened group of Christians urging them to be faithful by assurance to the one that is faithful. To pull 3:21 and make it a poster for symbolized baptism is anti-textual. I understand that these verses get thrown around for denominations to devour, but Peter is not making a play to the minds of these scattered aliens by making them “feel” better about their baptism. He is telling them that the immersion in Christ is real and “not” like the washing of water….because Christ is the one that is immersed for them. That is the comfort. Not something they have done. 1 Peter 3:21 argues against “feeling” like something is a symbol…and furthermore plunges the minds of the scattered aliens into the truth that Christ has been immersed for them and His resurrection is what brings us safely through the troubled water. In other words the Apostle Paul says the same thing. We are immersed into Christ into His death and His resurrection. These are realities, not symbols….and we obey the reality of what Christ has done, not the symbol or sign of what someone sees…..that would not be faith at all.

Read Peter’s first letter in fuller context…..

1 Peter 3:14-22 But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, (15) but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; (16) and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. (17) For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. (18) For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; (19) in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, (20) who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. (21) Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you–not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience–through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (22) who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.

Mark 10:36-45 And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” (37) They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” (38) But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (39) They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized. (40) “But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” (41) Hearing this, the ten began to feel indignant with James and John. (42) Calling them to Himself, Jesus *said to them, “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. (43) “But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; (44) and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. (45) “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

The Mark and Luke passages echo the same reality of immersion as Christ’s disciples wrestle over the “seeing” or “symbolic” aspect of their understanding. Christ said something in verse 38, that we are all familiar with ….something like “are you kidding me”… “are you able to drink or be baptized like me”. Lets not miss the reality of what Christ has said in these short verses. The disciples wanted desperately to be seen…in other words they wanted their “confessions” to be the headlines as long as they got to rule. But they did not understand the truth and reality of the immersion,… at least in that part of their learning process. They were more interested in signs, symbols, position, greatness, etc. Christ was teaching them about Himself and the immersion that was real not symbolized. He was pointing them to obedience. In other words, do what I tell you to do…because it is not symbolism that is at work here.
I guess we see these text in a slightly different context.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris, you said,

“But, the reality of baptism is the obedience, not the picture show.”

Would your church accept a Church of Christ baptism? The Church of Christ folks believe that baptism is an act of obedience, but they also believe that it is a requirement for salvation. Thus, they completely misunderstand its meaning. The obedience and the “picture show” are both quite important. When Paul described our being “buried with him through baptism into death” in Romans 6:4 he was indeed describing spiritual reality, but he was using a “picture” word to do it. Our own A. T. Robertson commented on the verse: “It should be said also that a symbol is not the reality, but the picture of the reality.”

Brother BT,

Our fellowship would teach against adding to the gospel of God with any picture, symbol, sign, or belief whatsoever. So we would absolutely warn our folks that anything added to the good news is not good news at all. I agree with you,….it is clear that someone that is convinced that their water baptism has some “magic” to aide in their salvation is mistaken and would not be in fellowship with believers in Christ alone, therefore they would not want to be a part of our fellowship. They would have larger issues than fighting for the efficacy of their water baptism. So we would preach the gospel to them in hope that God would show them mercy.

I think A.T. is on the right track to understanding the fallacy of symbols in the reality of salvation. I’m not saying that pictures are bad, or that they do not in some way help us to some degree understand certain realities (some folks more than others). But we should not blur the lines for the sake of tradition. Baptism is obedience only to the command of Christ. We confess Christ, we obey His command. It is pretty simple.

If we try to build other meanings for baptism as the reason for tradition, then we are left with tradition without any meaning.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Romans 10:8-11 But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”–that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, (9) that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; (10) for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. (11) For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.”

I don’t think we are miles apart on this one. Baptism is simple and is not an optional activity for a believer.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother Tim,
Sorry for so much digital ink on this…but you bring up some provocative stuff….I believe you bring us a salient point when you said,

“Once they begin growing and realize that eternal security is what the Bible teaches and moves to a SB church, the argument is there needs to be a re-baptism. This re-baptism is not because their mode of baptism was wrong but the identification of the baptism is rejected. This argument has strong scriptural support when Paul re-Baptized John-the-Baptists disciples because of their Baptismal identification was flawed.”

This is one of my favorite passages (Acts 19), because it does illustrate what those in the church are doing.

Acts 19:1-7 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. (2) He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” (3) And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” (4) Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” (5) When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. (6) And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying. (7) There were in all about twelve men.

Paul was asking these men… “into what then were you baptized”. These men understood that even though they were disciples in the church, believing in the messiah that would take away their sin,…following with all that Christ had revealed to them…their obedience was to John’s baptism, not Christ. This was a follow on to what we saw of Apollos just a few lines back. I don’t think this passage is arguing for their salvation (some may think so and argue for it). I believe that it is continuing to teach the reality of Christ’s resurrection and the power of the gospel. It is also giving clear instruction that the triune God is alive and well, and these men were able to confess that reality and were obedient to be baptized into Christ.

So, I don’t disagree that some folks might wake up as members of your church on the back pew someday and say…. “hey, I thought I was being baptized into the church…I didn’t realize I was being baptized into Christ alone”…and then they may request to be baptized since their obedience was to men and not Christ. The twelve disciples at Ephesus had a similar epiphany when they realized that John’s baptism was not the baptism to be obeyed.

Blessings,
Chris

Todd, you stated,

“What we say we believe about the symbol of baptism in the BFM is the same thing many Arminians say about the symbol of baptism in their statements of faith.”

You quoted the Assemblies of God statement:

“They declare to the world that they have died with Christ and that they also have been raised with Him to walk in newness of life.”

I also quoted from their website to point out that they separate the baptism of the Spirit from regeneration.

You also said,

“The fact that they are wrong on other doctrines does not invalidate their baptism or taint their clear exposition of its meaning.”

Their errant view of Spirit baptism (that it does not occur at the time of regeneration) taints their view of physical baptism. They have a very different concept of the spiritual realities symbolized by baptism. Contrary to what they say, Spirit baptism occurs at the moment of regeneration, as the BF&M makes clear:

“At the moment of regeneration He baptizes every believer into the Body of Christ.”

Timothy George related Spirit baptism to physical baptism in his discussion of Galatians 3:27:

“For the New Testament believer’s baptism with (or ‘in’ or ‘by’; cf. 1 Cor 12:13) the Holy Spirit is antecedent to baptism with water, the latter being a confession and public witness to the former. . . . Paul described all that baptism was given to represent in one of the most striking metaphors found anywhere in the New Testament, that of ‘putting on’ Christ. In Rom 6-8 Paul connected the concept of putting on Christ with that of ‘dying and rising with Christ,’ both of which are liturgically portrayed in the act of baptism.”

George, “Galatians,” vol. 30 in The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 278-279.

The late A. T. Robertson commented on 1 Corinthians 12:13:

“Each of them put on the outward badge of service to Christ, the symbol of the inward changes already wrought in them by the Holy Spirit. . . . And were all made to drink of one Spirit. . . . The reference is to a definite act in the past, probably to the inward experience of the Holy Spirit symbolized by the act of baptism.”

The Assemblies of God folks clearly see no connection between the baptism of the Spirit and physical baptism. Is it any wonder that they do not see any connection between Christ’s once-for-all-time death, burial, and resurrection and our once-for-all-time death, burial, and resurrection? I referenced Spurgeon above as he discussed burial in baptism. I left out this part of the sermon on Romans 6:3-4:

“And the grave is the place—I do not know where to get a word—of the settledness of death; for when a man is dead and buried you never expect to see him come home again: so far as this world is concerned, death and burial are irrevocable.”

As death and burial are irrevocable, so our salvation is irrevocable. How can anyone say that he is buried with Christ and believe that he can lose his salvation?

You said,

“The BFM states the consensus of what Baptists believe about baptism and nowhere is there a link in the BFM between Baptism and eternal security. The link is between baptism and conversion.”

The phrase “eternal security” is not used, but eternal security is certainly implied. Let’s look at the BFM again:

“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. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead.”

How can we say that we have died to sin if we can lose our salvation?
How can we say that our old life is buried if we can lose our salvation?
Our pre-Christian status cannot be resurrected from the dead and returned to us. We now have eternal life. The death/ burial of our old lives and the baptism of the Holy Spirit are irrevocable.

You finally said,

“However, as churches who voluntarily choose to associate and partner together in missions, we do so NOT on a majority exegetical opinion, but on the consensus statement (BFM2000) that forms the basis of our association and cooperation. The personnel guidelines of the IMB have, in effect, narrowed cooperation beyond the statement that we have agreed is the basis of our cooperation and have thus said, we will not cooperate with 25% of our churches (though we will take your money) unless they accommodate their practice to the majority view. That, my friend, is not “cooperative” missions.”

Remember, however, that the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message does not mention the word “divorce.” I could argue, however, that a criticism of divorce is implied from this statement in the BF&M:

“Marriage is the uniting of one man and one woman in covenant commitment for a lifetime.”

Before the personnel guidelines were put into place for baptism and PPL, the IMB had a policy on divorce. Career missionaries (who now start out as apprentices) cannot be divorced people. In contrast, ISC and Masters missionaries can be divorced. Divorce is a theological issue. If your church has a divorced pastor, and he wants to become an IMB career missionary, what is your church to do? Was the IMB not involved in cooperative missions prior to adopting the baptism and PPL guidelines? Your church is autonomous. No one is stopping a divorced pastor from becoming a career missionary with an organization other than the IMB that allows such. In fact, his church is free to fully support him as an independent missionary. He can certainly become a career missionary through an avenue other than the IMB career path.

Todd, you said,

“You do not seem to care what people say they believe.”

Ouch. . . . I apologize.

I re-read the thread. I want to be clear that I don’t want to minimize baptism. It’s crucial. In the Book of Acts, to call oneself a follower of Christ and to NOT be baptized would be unthinkable. I do believe if a person is authentic in his or her faith in Christ, baptism will follow.

I think we are serious deficient in discipleship with new believers. No wonder we have people who have been in church for years, yet still don’t get the fact that Jesus has paid the penalty. They almost live like Catholics needing weekly forgiveness to get to heaven.

I still have not seen a clear answer as to these things:

1. Why can’t baptism by immersion count if the person has genuinely been born again?

2. Does a person have to understand eternal security to be born again?

3. How does what a church believes on eternal security impact the person, simple, childlike faith of a person wanting to avoid hell? Would that person have to be baptized even after he’s been baptized?

I was baptized when I was 11. I was actually born again when I was 24. I called it “rededication.” When I was 40 and pastor of another church, I was baptized. I knew I was born again, but had the baptism on the wrong side of salvation experience.

If God can let non-baptists into heaven, why can’t we let those IMMERSED from other denominations into the church? And I’m not talking about a weak testimony either. The person must be able to articulate a salvation testimony.

Brother Alan,

I feel that you are connecting things that are not being connected by others. IOW, you seem to be connecting baptism to salvation, which is not what we are saying, as Andy Griffith would say, “had’all”.

Allow me to answer you as you have framed the concerns.

1. Why can’t baptism by immersion count if the person has genuinely been born again? In Acts 19:2 the Disciples of John the Baptist were asked if they had received the Holy Ghost since ye believed. These men were believers and were re-baptized because their original baptism by immersion…as a person…genuinely born again was not proper. Thus, there is scriptural guidelines for baptizing if the proper authority did not baptize with the right belief system.

2. Does a person have to understand eternal security to be born again? This question, I believe, is a red herring. Not that you intended it to be, but it is. The reason I say this is due to the fact that no one has advocated anyone understanding eternal security to be born again. This is where I believe you are trying, unintentionally I may add, to connect baptism and salvation.

3. How does what a church believes on eternal security impact the person, simple, childlike faith of a person wanting to avoid hell? Would that person have to be baptized even after he’s been baptized? I am not sure I understand this question, but I will stab at what I think I understand. Your first question can be answered by a question. How long does a person with simple, childlike faith desire to avoid hell? Long enough to get through whatever crisis one finds oneself? Or for eternity? Now, you ask if the person should be re-baptized. If the person received Christ only to avoid Hell to get through a crisis then the person was not saved to begin with and thus, needs to be saved not baptized.

I hope, this helps with the understanding. If you will notice I do not practice this where I serve. Also, you will notice that I am not advocated the right or wrong perspective on this issue. I am merely acknowledging that the Trustees made a decision based on what they believed the majority belief of SB. The recent Lifeway poll reveals their decision, based on majority view, was correct.

Blessings,
Tim

Brother Chris,

You seem to me that you are trying to hold me to the letter of the word instead of the spirit of the word. I am one, as I have said before, that does not practice re-baptizing people that come from Free Will Baptist churches. I am merely depositing an argument that seems to be a valid one. I can understand it from that perspective.

When one argues against re-baptizing they argue that there is no Scriptural guideline for such an act. I am merely pointing to a time that Scripture covers re-baptizing Believers after they have been baptized by immersion without a proper (complete) belief system of those baptizing.

Now, let be ask you a question. If a SB church baptizes a candidate and does not recite in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and only says; I now baptize you my Brother/Sister should that person be re-baptized?

Blessings,
Tim

Tim,

You are, I think, consistently misusing the Acfts 19 passage. It is very clear that these men had only received the Baptism of John the Baptist. Text makes that very clear.

These men were baptized after they believed in JEsus. They only received Christian baptism once.

You are stretching that passage well beyond scriptural limits to make a point.

Brother Tim,

The reason your answer to above referenced question raised a question in my mind, is that some believe that the proper authority and right belief system equals a “Baptist Church” being the only qualified unit to baptize, which in some Baptist circles seems to account for rebaptism in order to qualify for induction into that particular body. I would say that there are a great many Baptist’s that do no practice baptism in that manner (because it goes beyond scripture), but I can testify to the fact that there are many who would be quicker to associate baptism with a particular body quicker than they would to associate baptism with Christ, which misses the point of baptism altogether (in fact, that was the problem with these 12 disciples,..they were following the good news of the Messiah, but only knew of John’s baptism).

It seems to me that the Acts 19:2 passage is a clear testimony that the baptism of those twelve disciples (which these men were followers of the Messiah) is only associated to Christ, and the baptism into Christ that they “now” understand corroborates all other instances of baptism in the NT.

That may be exactly what you are saying.

Blessings,
Chris

Comments 27, 78, 89 all make this. I will not quote you here, since I will be upbraided for quote-mining, but in each of these, you make a fundamentally flawed point about these people.

These are not people baptized into Christ (and part of a local church) who are then rebaptized because of their flawed soteriological understanding.

They are men who were disciples of John who took the final step to believing in Christ and became Christians. Paul then baptized them as Christians for the first time.

That passage does not support BI re-baptism of genuine believers.

FYI, I had no dander up.

What an interesting discussion–the post and all 100 comments! As a layperson, I’ve been reading blogs since the beginning of this controversy. I can honestly say I’ve been blessed and challenged by the frequent passionate discussions about what is biblical baptism and who needs to be rebaptized (for lack of a better word) because of a flaw in an original baptism.

But these discussions (and the research referred to in the post) seem to be missing a crucial element. And it is this: how many pastors (or staff) actually sit down with a potential new member and talk about that person’s spiritual history all the way back. I suspect that rarely happens. My personal experience is that in 57 years, no one has ever asked me anything about my baptism or spiritual journey. The same is true for my husband. With others I’ve discussed this topic with, I’ve yet to meet anyone who (coming from another Baptist church) has been asked anything–ever. The usual practice seems to be a person walks down an aisle, shakes a pastors hand, fills out a card, and instantly becomes a member. No questions asked. Not about salvation, repentance, baptism, their spiritual journey, sin issues, spiritual gifts, personal theology, what they believe about the Bible, nothing. If there ever was a “don’t ask, don’t tell” arrangement, this is it.

I’m assuming most of you making these 100 comments are pastors and I believe you are likely the ones who would ask key questions of potential new members. May your tribe increase! But I strongly suspect in a large majority of churches, no one is asked anything about anyone’s original baptism by immersion.

I’m also curious about another thing. What do you know about the baptism history of the people in your current and past congregations, those who were there when you arrived? Are you sure all of them have been biblically baptized, or did some slip throuh the cracks under the tenure of a previous pastor?

Let’s say several pastors ago, several joined from a church that didn’t believe in eternal security and no one require their rebaptism. Would you take a “baptism audit” at your arrival and make sure these people were told they hadn’t been properly baptized and would need to be baptized again to continue as members?

Has anyone done this? Why or why not? Too uncomfortable? But this is exactly what some missionary candidates experience.

What I’m trying to say is that perhaps someone needs to do some good research to find out just how many churches actually ask anything about baptism of those seeking membership by transfer of membership. If very few are ever even asked to explain their baptism, this is a very empty controversy.

Blessings on you all!

Mary Ann