Sattler College Turmoil

[jahertz]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Not that I've ever heard.

I'd describe the founders' approach to establishing practice as generally restorationist. So in addition to parsing Scripture, they like to mine other early church writings for insights on potentially ambiguous passages, and to learn more about how the church practiced the apostles' teaching in the early years.

Most serious historians agree that during the first couple of centuries of Christian history, mode of baptism was not a source of much controversy. Full immersion seems to have been practiced by default, with occasional departures from that mode for special circumstances. I'm not aware of any evidence that people's salvation was being called into question during that era due to their mode of baptism.

To my knowledge that's is the current FOTW position as well, although you should ask them if you want to know for sure.

In my own experience in independent "Kingdom" circles, there has often been conflict between people who practice immersion by default based on historic precedent, and Church of Christ-influenced hardliners who insist on delegitimizing all baptisms done in another mode. I have never heard anything from anyone at FOTW to suggest that they fall into the second camp.

*Edit: I see we finally have some input from a FOTW representative, so I could have saved my keystrokes. Thanks, @brothereicher.

[joshuabgood]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

Hope this helps.

When I last spoke with FOTW about this...I don't believe they were embracing the term "baptismal regeneration" as they associated the finer points of that term with Catholicism - and their theories around the saving power of infant baptism. Is this still the case?

[jahertz]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

Hope this helps.

It seems this account should also put to rest the popular rumor that FOTW refuses to recognize baptisms by other groups and requires rebaptism as a prerequisite to membership, in the manner of some exclusivist Anabaptist groups.

brothereicher, do you want to speak to this?

[joshuabgood]

The square brackets were to give the context which was in the context of him explaining his early church views in baptism regeneration. I cannot remember enough of the context to type it out word for word.

It is entirely possible those views have changed.

So, let’s ask the question outright:

Does FotW believe that full immersion baptism is required for salvation?

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

Hope this helps.

It seems this account should also put to rest the popular rumor that FOTW refuses to recognize baptisms by other groups and requires rebaptism as a prerequisite to membership, in the manner of some exclusivist Anabaptist groups.

brothereicher, do you want to speak to this?

Where they have done so...their issue was age of baptism I think. Not mode...

[Josh]

There certainly has been furor of Sattler students returning home and declaring their baptisms invalid. It would be helpful if someone could shed light on this.

I find the use of the word “sacrament” particularly interesting, as I don’t see that word anywhere in scripture and the Bible seems to teach salvation comes from Jesus, not from having a religious ritual (such as a sacrament) administered by some appointed religious officer (such as a priest). Indeed, the early Anabaptists felt at liberty to conduct baptisms, marriages, and communion without sacramental approval.

[brothereicher]

Absolutely not.

Source:
I was baptized by my Beachy bishop at the age of 19. The baptism, as the Beachy mode is, was by pouring. I am a member in good standing at FOTW, and have been for about six months. In that time, there hasn't been even the slightest hint that my baptism was invalid or that I wasn't saved because the mode was incorrect or ahistorical.

The Didache and the EC recognized pouring as legitimate forms of baptism, although immersion in living water was strongly preferred.

I would be the first in line to find the exit if my adult baptism were called into question over mode.

FOTW does unapologetically teach baptismal regeneration, that is, that baptism confers real grace on the recipient and is the ordinary means for the remission of sins. We recognize that God's grace is bound to the sacraments, but that God Himself is not bound by the sacrament, meaning that He is able to save outside the ordinary means.

Hope this helps.

It seems this account should also put to rest the popular rumor that FOTW refuses to recognize baptisms by other groups and requires rebaptism as a prerequisite to membership, in the manner of some exclusivist Anabaptist groups.

brothereicher, do you want to speak to this?

Where they have done so...their issue was age of baptism I think. Not mode...

This is correct.
Age has been the issue in the cases of baptisms being questioned, AFAIK.

[brothereicher]

There certainly has been furor of Sattler students returning home and declaring their baptisms invalid. It would be helpful if someone could shed light on this.

I find the use of the word “sacrament” particularly interesting, as I don’t see that word anywhere in scripture and the Bible seems to teach salvation comes from Jesus, not from having a religious ritual (such as a sacrament) administered by some appointed religious officer (such as a priest). Indeed, the early Anabaptists felt at liberty to conduct baptisms, marriages, and communion without sacramental approval.

As mentioned previously, FOTW believes in adult baptism, and it's hard for us to stretch our conception of the word "adult" to include 10 and 12 year olds.

I find the subject of sacramentalism incredibly fascinating, but I don't have the desire to get into it here, especially given the "we don't find that word in the Bible" opening. As you well know, Christians believe lots and lots of things, such as "the Trinity," and "non-resistance" which aren't found word for word in the Bible.

At any rate, we don't believe that an appointed religious official is necessary for sacraments to have efficacy. Anyone can (and does) bless the bread and cup and perform and assist in baptisms. (Interestingly, non-sacramental Anabaptists would never think this is OK. If you doubt me, ask your ministers if you can bless the bread and wine next communion and see how it goes.)

As far as the source of salvation, of course we believe that salvation comes from Jesus. He uses the means of baptism to make His saving grace available to us, just like we believe that marriage is an act performed by God. (The preacher and the state don't make marriage happen.) But God brings marriage to pass through the rite of matrimony, which is a human action. A sacrament is something we do that has a supernatural effect.

[Soloist]

It seems this account should also put to rest the popular rumor that FOTW refuses to recognize baptisms by other groups and requires rebaptism as a prerequisite to membership, in the manner of some exclusivist Anabaptist groups.

brothereicher, do you want to speak to this?

Where they have done so...their issue was age of baptism I think. Not mode...

This is correct.
Age has been the issue in the cases of baptisms being questioned, AFAIK.

I disagree with them and agree at the same time.

When children decide to join instruction class because their friends did…
Or when someone feels the conviction and gets baptized only to have people who hardly know them a few years later decide it wasn’t valid.

[brothereicher]

Where they have done so...their issue was age of baptism I think. Not mode...

This is correct.
Age has been the issue in the cases of baptisms being questioned, AFAIK.

I disagree with them and agree at the same time.

When children decide to join instruction class because their friends did…
Or when someone feels the conviction and gets baptized only to have people who hardly know them a few years later decide it wasn’t valid.

This is a legitimate point of disagreement, by which I mean, I understand where the contention comes from, and why people feel the way that they do.

And if someone realizes that they are on this side, and Sattler is on that side, it makes sense to conclude that Sattler isn't a place you want to be.

P.S. I should add that Sattler doesn't speak to the baptisms of its students, but many students do attend FOTW churches as a result of being at Sattler, and therefore Sattler is the indirect cause of the subject coming up.

[Soloist]

This is a legitimate point of disagreement, by which I mean, I understand where the contention comes from, and why people feel the way that they do.

And if someone realizes that they are on this side, and Sattler is on that side, it makes sense to conclude that Sattler isn't a place you want to be.

P.S. I should add that Sattler doesn't speak to the baptisms of its students, but many students do attend FOTW churches as a result of being at Sattler, and therefore Sattler is the indirect cause of the subject coming up.

And this effectively swirls the argument back to an Anabaptist church not being “blessed” by Finny causing the conflict.