Baptism

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[blonde]

What are people's differing views of infant and adult baptism?  I am sure there are a great many.  I was baptized as an adult at GCM. 

-Blonde

[newcreature]

And I baptized a few people as a GCI member. Once we even broke the ice in a lake to do it because we were so "spiritual." Funny thing though, Paul said he didn't come to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Except for three or so people, he even thanked God that he hadn't baptized any Corinthians (1:14-17).

Back when I belonged to GCI, the Matthew 28 song was always a crescendo to our meetings. "Baptizing them" was part of the marching orders. As I look back, it affirmed my meaning and purpose in life. Now I had my very own disciple. It was proof positive to me and my leaders that I was on my way to becoming a leader and reaching the world for Christ.

I am not trying to denigrate the beauty and symbolism of baptism, just the obsession with it.

Catholics and Church of Christ members think it saves you. Catholics insist on sprinkling babies, CoCs insist on dunking adults (in THEIR church). Some churches perform dedication ceremonies for infants and wait until they grow up before baptizing them. Baptists, GCI, and "O' Brother Where Art Thou" followers do a "one-dunker" in all three names of the Trinity, while Plymouth Brethern (or a branch thereof?) do a "three-dunker" in each name of the Trinity. Mormons even baptize for the dead...creepy.

I would just trust God and ask for His guidance and timing in the matter... and beware of anyone who tries to aggressively indoctrinate you or pressure you into a decision.

I heard a humorous joke (to me, anyway) years ago about sprinkling vs. immersion:

Methodist: So let me get this straight: you believe a person isn't baptized unless he has been fully immersed in water?

Baptist: Correct. We believe in full immersion - not pouring or sprinkling.

Methodist: So, (as he walks waist-deep into a lake), am I baptized?

Baptist: No sir.

Presbyterian: How about now? (as he wades further until he is in up to his neck)

Baptist: Nope.

Methodist: (blowing bubbles as he totally submerges, except for the crown of his head. Then popping out of the water, he says): Now?

Baptist: No!

Methodist: That proves my point!

Baptist: What!?

Methodist: The top of the head is all that matters.

[G_Prince]

I vote for both.

[EverAStudent]

The Grace Brethren denomination split apart because some said it was "necessary" to baptize with three dunkings to honor the Trinity while the rest of the denomination said once is sufficient since there is only one God.  sigh...

Since it is not the washing by the water that saves, so long as the act involves a convert, water, and a public gathering to witness the act, the symbol has served its purpose--the rest is liberty. 

[BTDT]

I vote for both.

And I did both.  I was baptized as an infant, in the Lutheran church, and then as an adult in a muddy creek, with GC.  The LCMS (Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod) believed (and may still believe) that the two Sacraments, Baptism and Communion, have a special sort of power and place, sort of a conduit of God's saving power.  That's why they baptize infants right away (and why they serve communion to the dying).  GC, as we know, believed in baptism as an outward sign of an inward change, but true to form, added a sort of "commitment to the cause" to it.

[Innerlight]

The term "dunking" even has a carnival sound to it.  Growing up Baptist, it was always immersion.  Sounds a bit more respectful than "Dunking". 

[blonde]

Recently, I received this email from Pastor Brent Knox in Minneapolis.

"A couple of Evergreen locations did something out of the ordinary in regards to baptism. Both Lakeville and Bloomington dedicated an entire weekend message to baptism. Then the service was followed up with a commitment card. At the end of the service, people were encouraged to fill out the card stating an interest in being baptized the next weekend. Result?  40 Baptisms for Lakeville.  40 Baptisms for Bloomington.  Then the next weekend's service was dedicated entirely to baptisms as people filled the service with their personal stories. It was better than a sermon!  We also video taped the stories for future use--to show the church at a key time how God changes people's lives."

[AgathaL'Orange]

Okay, this is going to sound nitpicky.  I have researched this some, and actually it comes out in favor of GC.  But the plural of baptism as baptisms has always sounded so, I don't know unholy or grammatically incorrect.  I think it sounds better as 40 people baptized vs. 40 baptisms.  I know I'm not making sense here, but while "baptisms" is correct officially, you don't hear people use that term as much as "people baptized".  While baptisms is used frequently and technically correct, even more grating to the ear was the GC use of "salvations".  We saw 20 "salvations" this week instead of "20 people saved".  Am I the ONLY person that was bothered by this?

[theresearchpersona]

I think it sounds better as 40 people baptized vs. 40 baptisms.

Given it's a transliteration (as a baptism I'm going to have to dissent from those baptists who want to translate "immerse" everywhere, since in various places that's not the meaning) and the Gr. has the form "baptizein", it's not wonder "baptize" and "baptized" sound better to you--the combination of sounds is a bit more authentic/accurate. : ) The "ism" is used most properly as a noun form for the act in the English, and while adding "-s" for the plural by analogy to refer to the acts rather than the recipients--"the baptized"--is acceptable English and harmonious with it, it's not as harmonious with the Church's way of speaking (who cares about the acts vs. the recipients? And most commonly through history that I've seen it's been the persons referred to rather than the acts!), I don't think...

I know I'm not making sense here, but while "baptisms" is correct officially, you don't hear people use that term as much as "people baptized".

I want to say the aforementioned another way: you have a good ear--at least in this topic. : )

While baptisms is used frequently and technically correct, even more grating to the ear was the GC use of "salvations".  We saw 20 "salvations" this week instead of "20 people saved".  Am I the ONLY person that was bothered by this?

I'm bothered because as one great preacher pointed out, you should not assure or count as salvation what will take a lifetime to prove. GC* and "the coterie of bible preachers" all the way down from Charles Finney in America have been counting their heads and subscription cards for their own pride more than care about biblical evangelism or true conversion. To say "x people saved" at all its quite presumptuous, I believe, and often coupled with the even more dangerous and horrid trespass of these men assuring the prayer that they are indeed now saved (and should worry about because they might get stymied in fretting and become useless [to our plans for you in orur organization and schemes]), when assurance is the Spirit's place, God's alone, not for any man to dare tread upon.

As for verity or falsity of a conversion, let the fruit do the talking whether for or against the profession/confession.