|
|
|
"Is One Who Is Baptized In A Denomination
For The Remission Of Sins A Brother In Christ?"
Harrell Davidson |
The next question to come to us reads like this: "Is one who is baptized in a denomination for the remission of sins a brother in Christ?" The short answer to this question is obviously no, but we will demonstrate in a moment in more detail what we mean. The first question that came to our mind years ago was "How can one be taught wrong and baptized right?" While almost all mainline denominations require baptism of some kind or type before one can be identified with that particular religious movement, there are about as many diversities of thought as there are the baptisms they administer. The question is not altogether tied to a liberal movement, but it involves liberalism nonetheless. Let us ask some questions — make some statements and thus reason together (Isa. 1:18). In the phrase in Acts 2:38, "For the remission of sins," the Greek word "for" is translated from "eis." Some pronounce this "ace" while others refer to it as "ice." According to Thayer, Vine, Liddell & Scott and other Greek authorities, the word means, "In order to," or "in order to obtain." It points forward always — never backward. For instance, our Baptist friends baptize individuals as an outward sign of an inward grace, or to say the same in another way, they baptize someone who has already been forgiven, thus, that baptism is not for the remission of sins and it puts one in the Baptist Church not the body of Christ. Try calling your local Baptist preacher and ask him this question: "Will you baptize me for the remission of my sins?" He will answer in the negative. Not only will he do so, but he will do it in a negative way. This denomination does not baptize for the remission of sins even though they use immersion, therefore, it would be impossible for one to be baptized with a baptism that points backwards as the Baptists teach and be a member of the body of Christ. At one time in their history, the Catholic Church immersed individuals — even infants — before they started sprinkling. We realize that this sounds contrary, but history shows it to be true. However, according to Professor Stuart's work on "Baptism," he noted that, "The Catholic Church, The English Episcopal Church and the Lutheran Church adopted modes of baptism quite different from that of immersion" (pp. 169 -172). There is no such thing as "modes" as it is the action that is involved. For instance, our Presbyterian friends pour for baptism and call it a "mode," but incorrectly so. Our Methodist friends have adopted choices. On page 470 under Section II, under the heading of baptism, The Discipline of The Methodist Church states, "Let every adult person, and the parents of every child to be baptized, have their choice of sprinkling, pouring, or immersion." On page 471 the parents of an infant are to take an oath that "... It is your part and duty to see that he [the infant, hdd] be taught, as soon as he shall be able to learn, the meaning and the purpose of this holy Sacrament." The above represents a sampling of the teachings of our religious neighbors. How under the sun, which lights up our universe, did anyone come up with the idea that one could be baptized in any denomination and be in the body of Christ is beyond me to know. Are we ready to throw away the plain teaching of the Holy Scriptures? Have we forgotten that every convert in the book of Acts was already religious? Not one of them was saved outside the body of Christ and not one of them argued that their baptism was "safe" as some do today. It is obvious, even to the casual reader, that we have let denominationalism creep in among us today. The short answer is still "no," but now you know why. Thanks for the question. |