Monday, February 17, 2014

IMPLICATIONS OF "REBAPTISM" ERROR

An Implication is defined as, "the conclusion that can be drawn from something although it is not explicitly stated; a likely consequence of something (like a belief, DM)".
Question - What are the implications of a religious teaching that says a person's baptism is valid and effectual, attaining the blessings of God, though it was done for the following denominational reasons: [1] Jesus commanded it; [2] Jesus saved me already and I want to participate in the outward sign to show to others I'm saved; [3] Because it is necessary to be added to my local church.

-- First implication: it doesn't matter what you understand. To understand what God said about the purpose of Baptism would not be necessary to receive saving grace. In other words, the religious teaching described above would imply that God rewards faith that grows out of and is rooted in false teachings and so what a person understands isn't prohibitive to being saved. I outlined in the 3 points above what is the denominational understanding of Baptism. If understanding the purpose of Baptism - what the Scriptures actually teach are the blessings related Scriptural Baptism - isn't necessary for it to be effectual, then where is the line of understanding drawn? Does one also not need to understand what the Scriptures say about Jesus Christ, the Godhead, and the particulars of His earthly ministry including the virgin birth and resurrection? If understanding what the Bible says on Baptism isn't necessary to appropriate God's blessings (which are easily understood from passages like Acts 2:38; 22:16; Rom. 6:3-5; Gal. 3:26,27; Col. 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21), then what other knowledge is also not necessary to be saved? Once a person (like Jimmy Allen, a purveyor of this religious doctrine) makes the assertion that understanding isn't necessary as long as the action is right, then where is the line to be drawn? I would suggest that the assertion is the first step onto the slippery slope of dismissing much that is in the Bible. A person who holds this doctrine I pray would repent and extricate himself immediately from this error. I would conclude, first off then, that this religious teaching implies that understanding God's Word isn't necessary for salvation.
----- The person that holds to this religious doctrine would protest and argue that it does matter what a person understands, just not on Baptism. That's a tentative position and a slippery slope.
-----Since Jimmy Allen would say that doing the act is important that Jimmy Allen would argue that the person had enough precious faith to please God, then this leads me to the second implication...

-- Second implication: it doesn't matter what is taught. Denominations that represent divisions, the result of adding and taking away from the Holy Scriptures, would actually be in the business of saving souls and introducing sinners into the saving grace of God - if this religious doctrine is true. Even though they distort the Bible in many places regarding faith (e.g., faith only doctrine), grace (e.g., only for limited few and once you have it you can't lose it), nature of sin (e.g., something passed on, not only something you do), nature of man (e.g., born depraved, children are sinners), doctrine of Christ (e.g., saying He didn't sin because He couldn't sin, teaching He was spared the sin nature either because (i.e., Catholic) Mary herself was miraculously conceived to not have the sin nature OR (i.e., Baptist) the sin nature is passed on through the biological father, not the mother, thus Jesus spared sin nature), the organization and leadership of the church (e.g., having earthly headquarters and having Deacons lead instead of Elders), and particularly here they twist the Scriptures on the purpose of Baptism. Though they practice an immersion, they do not teach what the Scriptures say about Baptism (the passages I gave above in the previous point give a clear picture on the correct teaching of Baptism). This religious teaching would require that these religious denominations, though teaching wrong, are nevertheless in the business of introducing people into forgiveness and eternal life.

-----The person that holds to this religious doctrine would protest and say that it does matter what you teach, just not what you teach about Baptism. Denominations teach that Baptism is NOT for remission of sins, a contradiction of Scripture, and denominations teach that Baptism is an “outward sign” of something that happened in the past and that it gains one entrance into the denomination. This erroneous religious doctrine that opposes "rebaptism" says that people are taught wrong but they are saved. I have been personally called sectarian because I rebaptize those who were taught wrong.

Further, this is a slippery slope. Are we to accept the assertion that God saves people who are taught and understand denominational doctrines on Baptism, but God is not going to accept them that are taught and understand error on proper worship or organization of the church? Is the “precious faith” that God accepted for Baptism not enough to cover for wrong teaching on worship?

Jesus did not create Denominations. They are entirely the work of the evil one, the tares if you will, that has much of the appearance of the real thing but being counterfeit have none of the fruit. But the Jimmy Allen disciples say, "Not so, indeed they do have fruit of salvation."

------Where is the line to be drawn if a person accepts this religious doctrine that says Baptism is effective though the person was taught wrong and understood error? Where do we draw the line for what is acceptable to God? I put forward to you that the line is works. This religious doctrine says what matters is that you do what Jesus said. Why you do it doesn't matter, according to the false position. WHY one gets baptized doesn't matter. The reason WHY doesn't matter to them. And so they argue that baptist are saved though their reason is based on denominational error which intentionally distorts the truth. What they ignore is that motive, purpose, meaning - all of these - go to the heart and spirit of one's actions. Once understanding and teaching of purpose or meaning is dismissed, then the only measure is the outward actions/works of the individual. The measure, if this doctrine is true, is whether or not you did what Jesus said to do, regardless of your understanding is a doctrine of man.

This religious doctrine has too many bad implications to be accepted. As a young preacher recently said to me, "We have to draw the line somewhere. Why not at Scripture?" Exactly. This religious doctrine is presumptuous as it draws the line where the Scriptures do not.






No comments:

Post a Comment

HAVE YOUR SAY, PLEASE COMMENT


To email Dan Mayfield: Click Here