UPDATED - SEE BELOW
I was reading something this morning that made me go "hmmm".
I wonder, if a person said that mode of baptism was a secondary issue (secondary to doctrines essential to salvation), and not an issue to divide over, what exactly does that mean?
I would be most interested in your thoughts on this one. (7:53am 05/31/06)
---------------------------------
When I posted this question this morning I honestly didn't expect to see the kind of responses that it generated. I'm not sure what I expected but I was quite impressed with the replies. I also didn't expect to be offline most of the day due to t-storms & being under a tornado watch, so I've been delayed in responding to some of the excellent comments.
When I read that statement this morning, I had several thoughts, and I'm going to go ahead and list them here in no particular order. Feel free to comment further on these things.
1. Secondary issues.
I know what folks mean when they say that, but something about it always seems a bit "off". I know that folks mean secondary to the essential truths one must affirm to be genuinely confessing faith in Christ. I'm not even going to list what I believe those "essentials" are because that would send this off in a brand new direction. I'll leave that for Frank or Dan or Steve to blog about.
When I hear that baptism, or mode of baptism is a secondary issue, it actually makes me cringe for those that I know will be offended by that. I know for example, that many Baptist brothers and sisters are convicted that the mode of baptism (full immersion) is actually symbolic of the very gospel of Christ. The death, burial and resurrection being carried out in the baptismal waters being the very act of Christ's victory over death, hell and the grave. I know that they believe that any other mode is taking away from that gospel. It's hard for me to say where I actually stand on that myself though. I'm not sure if I can say "any other mode is a false picture of the gospel and therefore not the true gospel at all" as some will say.
Some may say that's riding the fence to say that but I don't see it that way, obviously. For me it's a matter of "they've been convicted of this and I have not". But I do know that saying the mode of baptism is a secondary issue is an offense to them.
2. Issues to divide over.
This may seem rather ignorant but if mode of baptism wasn't an issue to divide over, then why are there so many denoms that are divided over that very issue? Of course it's an issue to divide over, at least to some degree or there wouldn't be different denoms.
However, does that mean a Baptist can't have fellowship with a non-Baptist? I sure hope not, since I count quite a few non-Baptists among some of the coolest people I know and do have fine fellowship with. However...
Can we have fellowship when it comes to the topic of mode of baptism? Technically, no we cannot, and here's why...
If fellowship means joint participation, or shared beliefs, then it's pretty obvious someone who holds to believer's baptism via full immersion, isn't going to be able to have fellowship with that person on that subject with someone who doesn't hold those same beliefs. However, with that said, that doesn't mean there can't be fellowship there on other issues (because we all know there can be). It just means that there will be some things at least that are better left alone, since both parties know they don't agree.
However (did I warn you this would be random thinking?), a thought occured to me as I read this, and Rebecca nailed it in the comment section before I even fully formulated it in my own thoughts:
"Sometimes, though, a different way of baptizing accompanies a different understanding of the meaning of baptism, and that different meaning of baptism will touch on what would be one of the essentials of the faith. Like a belief in baptismal regeneration, for instance, or a denial of the Trinity."
So, considering Rebecca's comment, how then can it be said that mode of baptism isn't an issue to divide over? Let's say for example, someone genuinely does hold to baptismal regeneration (regardless of the mode). Then what? Do we break fellowship with them, and divide? Is it then an issue to divide over? Does it then fall into the category of essential doctrines and not secondary doctrines?
I know, lots of questions...
I actually had more but I'll leave it with this comment from David:
"Certainly, the doctrine of baptism is very important, and I would not compromise on it. It is important enough to be partly divide over, which is why I'm not Presbyterian. However, it is not so divisive that I can't worship and fellowship with Presbyterians. Baptism is a lesser divider than soteriology. If faced with the choice, I would attend a Presbyterian church rather than an Arminian Baptist church."
It's ironic that he would say this since this very thing (the part I emphasized) came up in conversation last night in our home. I'm a little concerned David might have a spy-cam installed here somewhere but we'll get to that issue later, right after I figure out how Rebecca read my mind.
You see, we're in this situation right now where we are in fact faced with this choice. The thing is, I'm not a Presbyterian, nor am I an Arminian. Nor am I a Lutheran, Methodist, Mennonite or a Charismatic. I'm a Baptist.
Would I be able to worship in those churches? In all honesty, I don't believe I would be able to. I believe I would feel like I was in the wrong place and/or compromising what I know to be truth. Does that mean there are not true believers in these churches (regardless of their mode of baptism)? Of course not. I'm fairly convinced that there are genuine believers in all kinds of denoms, non-denoms and from all sorts of religious and non-religious backgrounds. But that doesn't mean I'd be any more comfortable in a Charismatic church than a Methodist would be in a Baptist church.
There are legitimate reasons for divisions and differning denoms and mode of baptism is just one of them.
So with that said, I have a hard time reconciling the original statement that mode of baptism is a secondary issue and not something we should divide over.
As always your comments are welcome. I just hope I wont be sorry I said that, lol.
Related Tags: sovereign grace, baptist, the 5 solas, Christian homeschooling, Christian t-shirts and gifts
And now a word from our sponsors...
With Father's Day just around the corner, have we got a deal for you with
"Inside this T-shirt is the Worlds Greatest Dad". As unique as YOUR dad! Great Father's Day gifts for the greatest dad in your life.
What better way to show your patriotic colors than with one of these great T's? Tell the whole world how you feel about Canada! Wear it loud, eh!
For all you proud, patriotic Americans 

















As I was out there yesterday morning, I had a lot of time to think. I had thoughts like "if this fly lands on my face one more time, I'm going to snap & turn into Jack Nicholson from The Shining", and even deeper thoughts such as "oh man that breeze feels good". 























































Lest you think we're some fly by night outfit, rest assured that even famous people shop here! I have it on good authority that famous people don't shop at bad stores. I read that on a blog once, so it must be true. Right?




