|
I.
What Is Required For Proper Or Valid
Baptism?
At least four things are necessary for
baptism:
A. Candidate – Salvation – One must
be saved. Acts 8:36-37,
B. Mode or method – immersion, John
3:23, Acts 8:38, Matthew 3:16 (the word
baptize in the New Testament always refers
to immersion.)
C. Reason – shows the Lord’s death,
burial and resurrection.
Romans 6:3-6
D. Administrator – one who has the
authority or right to administer the
ordinance. Matthew 28:19-20 i.e. the church
II.
The Pollution Of Baptism.
The Lord gave the Church two ordinances,
baptism and the Lord’s Supper. We cannot
change either (1 Cor.11:2) else we stand in
jeopardy of the judgment of God. This is
exactly what happens in 1 Corinthians. This
church violated the commands for keeping the
Supper and the results were devastating.
Individuals were weak, sick and some had
died because they corrupted the Supper (1
Cor.11:30). Why? Because it is one of two of
the most stirring undertakings a church can
perform. This church had taken the blood of
Jesus and made it unimportant. What a
travesty! In like manner, when a church
pollutes the picture of the death, burial
and resurrection of our Lord, it is an
appalling thing! Imagine, what would be
thought if someone desecrated the picture of
one of the 911 victims. There would be an
outcry from every corner. Yet, when a group
takes this picture, baptism, and destroys it
symbolism by sprinkling, or expecting it to
give grace, what must it do to the Lord’s
heart.
When a group sprinkles an infant or even
an adult, they mangle the truth of the
picture and in fact there is no baptism.
When a group, who has no authority, tries to
do what God commissioned His churches to do,
they are no better than the vagabond Jews,
exorcist, in the book of Acts who tried to
duplicate what the followers of Jesus had
done. "Paul I know and Jesus I know, but who
are you...."
Groups of individual came from the
Catholic Church during the Protestant
Reformation, a group that had already become
corrupt. Rome had long before the
Reformation lost any legitimate right to
take the gospel to the world. How can that
which has no authority to baptize, give
authority to her daughters? Not only had she
long since forfeited any legitimacy she may
have had, but also she passed on her failure
to her children. How could she grant to
another what she herself was not a possessor
of?
III.
Is
There Scriptural Precedence For Rebaptism?
Yes, there is. See Acts 19:1-7
Acts 19:1-7
And it came to pass, that, while Apollos
was at Corinth, Paul having passed
through the upper coasts came to
Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
2 He said unto them, Have ye received
the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And
they said unto him, We have not so much
as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost. 3 And he said unto them, Unto
what then were ye baptized? And they
said, Unto John’s baptism. 4 Then said
Paul, John verily baptized with the
baptism of repentance, saying unto the
people, that they should believe on him
which should come after him, that is, on
Christ Jesus. 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 Ghost came on
them; and they spake with tongues, and
prophesied. 7 And all the men were about
twelve. |
These twelve had every confidence their
baptism was valid. Those who performed the
baptism have every confidence their
administration was valid. Those who knew the
twelve believed their baptism was satisfactory.
Yet we know without question their baptism was
invalid.
A. Let’s examine those who were baptized.
1. They were without question saved.
Therefore we know proper baptism requires more
than salvation to have valid baptism.
2. They were immersed, yet still
required proper baptism. We, therefore, know it
requires more than immersion to have valid
baptism.
3. They were "content" or satisfied
they had valid baptism but we know from these
scriptures it required more than contentment.
B. Let’s examine those who did the
baptizing.
1. They used the proper method,
immersion, but it was invalid.
2. They used proper candidates,
saved individuals, but it was invalid.
3. They were themselves saved but we
know it requires more than the administrator
being saved therefore the baptism was invalid.
Whoever baptized these individuals immersed them
with reference to what John had been doing. They
had no right or authority to do so.
IV. The view among many Baptists today is
this, if you were saved at the point of your
baptism, and the baptism was by immersion, the
baptism is acceptable. However, it is evident
from these scriptures more than salvation is
required, more than immersion is required, more
than being happy with your baptism is required
and more than saved individuals performing the
baptism is required. One must be authorized to
do this baptism. John was authorized (John
1:6,33.) The church was authorized (Matthew
28:19-20.) We find no other group that was
commissioned or authorized to baptize.
V. "I agree with everything you have said but
why do I need to be baptized?"
A little leaven will leaven the whole lump.
(1 Cor.5: 6) How much error is too much error? I
think any Christian would say that any
compromise is too much compromise. If one were
passing poison around in a glass, halving it
each time it passed to another person and then
added the same amount of water, would you want
your child to drink the mixture when it got to
him? If a group of people immerses, who has no
authority to immerse, and those people filter
out to other churches, how many of these
individuals with improper baptism would you need
before the church that accepted that baptism was
wrong? You would need only one. A little
leaven...
In the 1500’s a movement began called the
Protestant Reformation. There were some within
the Catholic Church that took exception to a few
of Rome’s doctrines. They split and it was from
this "Reformation" or reforming that the
Methodist, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. were
born. (Baptist did not begin here for they were
never a part of the Catholic Church.) It must be
remembered that the Catholics at the time of
this division had become idol worshipers. They
were no more Christians than the pagans they
sought to convert. They baptized infants, prayed
to Mary, believed the seven sacraments were
necessary for salvation, "There are seven
sacraments: Baptism, Confirmation, Holy
Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy
Orders, and Matrimony." Few, if any Catholics
were saved, none, if they truly believed what
the Catholic Church taught concerning salvation.
Each of these groups coming from the Catholic
Church retained the doctrine of the "mother
church,"—works for salvation.
These were lost people, baptizing infants,
and the non-saved who then became a part of the
church. It was these people who split from Rome.
Surely no one would argue the point that
those authorized to baptize would first need to
be saved themselves. How could a lost man do
what God has commissioned saved men to do? Surly
no one would argue the point that those with the
authority to baptize would need to have been
baptized. How could a man who refused to obey
the Lord in this command then act as God’s agent
to carry it out in another? Finally I hope no
one would argue that those authorized to baptize
should be walking before the Lord correctly.
Yet, in every case of the Reformation, men,
lost men, left Rome to build their own work.
Even if one allows that these people could have
been saved, by what authority did they have to
do what God had commissioned only the church to
do?
Would you accept baptism at the hands of a
lost man or one who refuses to be baptized?
Would you receive baptism at the hands of a
drunkard or murderer? Certainly not. Yet, daily
individuals accept baptism from the hand of a
group that is made up of lost people. Do you
think most of those in these groups are saved?
Listen to the doctrinal statement of these
folks:
1. Catholic – "Baptism cleanses us of
sins and brings the Holy Spirit and his grace
into our soul." Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth,
1996
2. Methodist – "Assures us that our sins
are forgiven. " "As we are born from the womb,
so in baptism are we born in Christian life."
What Methodist should know about Baptism, 1996
3. Presbyterian – "Bestows the promise of
God’s grace upon us." Assures us that God
forgives our sins." About the Sacrament of
Baptism, 1995.
4. Lutheran – "Baptism worketh
forgiveness of sin, delivers from death and the
devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who
believe, as the words and promises of God
declare." Smaller Catechisms
5. Church of Christ – (who did not come
out of the reformation) "According to Peter,
baptism is just as essential (to salvation) as
baptism." Why I am a Member of the Church of
Christ, 1945
This list could be enlarged to include most
of the "main stream Christians" of today. Do I
believe there are people in the Methodist,
Lutheran or Presbyterian churches that are
saved? Certainly, but it is in spite of their
doctrine not because of it. Based upon the
doctrinal statements above, could you in good
conscience accept as biblical their baptism?
Better yet, do you think God would? They baptize
for salvation, baptize unsaved individuals, is
this not a pollution of the picture? Would God
be happy with this distortion of His Son’s
death?
If First Baptist Church takes the baptism
(even if by immersion) from the local Methodist
Church and based upon what Methodist says they
believe in their doctrinal statement, then has
not First Baptist just received lost members
into their fellowship? Yet, we have already said
that a lost man cannot baptize nor should he be
baptized. In receiving the baptism First Baptist
has accepted both. They accepted the local
Methodist Church as a legitimate authority to
baptize. Yet, this church in every way pollutes
the picture of the ordinance. Has First Baptist
not just bid them God speed? Does not a little
leaven, leaven the whole lump at First Baptist?
If this trend continued when would First Baptist
have more members that are lost than those that
are saved? To say the very least, even their
baptism becomes suspect. Why? It allows the
possibility of lost people in their
congregation. They have agreed that baptism by
the proper authority does not matter. By
recognizing the Methodist’s baptism, they
recognized what they do as right. Those without
authority to baptize pollute the picture and
First Baptist has said "amen". First Baptist
now has members voting in their meeting, taking
the Lord’s Supper, and guiding the church who
have yet to be saved or at the best failed to
have baptism and therefore cannot be a member of
a New Testament church.
Remember those individuals who baptized the
twelve in Acts 19? They had no right or
authority to do so, yet both parties involved
were saved. Paul immersed these people because
there was no question as to their need of
baptism. An individual who was baptized by a
group of people who do not possess that right
should, no, they must be rebaptized or properly
baptized.
We recommend the 37 page book by Pastor Robert
Sargent titled "What?
I Must Be Re-baptized" available from
Bible Baptist
Publications
of Oak Harbor, Washington. |
