MennoNet.com

Vote and discuss

#7 but if someone comes from another church and has been baptized as a believer- mode shouldn't matter.

For those who do complete immersions: how would you accommodate wheelchair bound individuals?

Drive through car wash style?

MaxPC wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:09 pm For those who do complete immersions: how would you accommodate wheelchair bound individuals?

I was told they poured a 5 gallon bucket on him.

RZehr wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:11 pm Drive through car wash style?

$2 deluxe or $5 premium?

I'm sort of torn between #6 & #7, so I checked both.

I lean toward 7 because I think that offering the different modes MAY create the notion that the mode is of great importance. The essential factors are that
A.) It is being done upon a personal, living, confession of faith in the saving power of Jesus, the Chosen One of the Father. (Only a person of age can make this type of confession.)
B.) The "applicant" ("baptizee") is aware that it is not a vehicle through with grace is imparted.
C.) The benefits of this simple act of obedience to the command of Jesus are conveyed and performed by God. (That is, it is not a "sacrament of the Church".)

However, in favor of #6, I would not want to deny an alternative mode to anyone, especially in the case of an elderly person with disabilities, primarily when the mode chosen by the congregation is immersion. (When I was a teen in our youth group, we had a youth weekend gathering in a neighboring state, and we were all housed in people's homes. I was put in an elderly woman's home, I spent a good bit of time talking with her. She had come into the MB circles from some group that did infant baptism, so she was not a member. It was not that she refused to be "rebaptized", but this was in the early 70's, she was up in years already, so had some physical limitations, but mostly it was the social factor - being seen soaking wet in front of a group of people. She had the old-time sensibilities. She asked if I thought it was OK to ask for a "private baptism". I do not recall for sure how I answered - I was probably around 16 or 17 at the time, but now I would say that I think this would be fine. Some say baptism is a public demonstration, a public testimony. Frankly, I have not found any support for that in Scripture. The only thing I see is the command to do it.)

Also as to giving options, I would discourage any notion that one mode is somehow "more Biblical" or "better, more effective", than any other. There are Scripture texts that tie the act of baptism to various types of symbolism - Death, Burial, & Resurrection (suggesting immersion), Sprinkling by the blood of sacrifice (suggesting sprinkling), and The Out-Pouring of the Spirit (suggesting pouring). [Maybe sprinkle some water on them, then pour water on them, then push them under?.... ]

As always, I am open to correction. I have never written out a statement like this before, so I may easily have missed some even more essential points, or I may also have erred in some of these I listed.

(I was baptized in a formerly "immersion only" group, the MB. Before around 1964 they would not accept the believer's baptism of anyone coming in from another Mennonite group UNLESS it had been by immersion. I was of course baptized after that, about 5 years after that change. They still did not allow any other options, just accepted other modes after the merger of the KMB conference with the larger MB conference.)

I believe scripture clearly teaches immersion was the earliest church mode. However, I don't believe water baptism is essential to salvation regardless of the mode and that my Salvation Army brothers and sisters in the Lord, who do not baptise in water although they are not opposed to it, are born again. Salvation text that supports my view would be verses like John 3:16, Romans 10:9,10 and others that don't speak of the need to be baptised in water.

And I know there are other texts like Peter's Acts 2:38 statement and that includes being immersed in Jesus name. Oneness Pentecostals use the Peter wording and would require me to be re-baptised if I was baptised, even as an adult, in the Matthew 28:19-20 wording but that is because they believe the name being referred to in Matthew 28:19-20 is Jesus name and Peter understood it correctly.

I have only been a participant in Baptist (2 kinds), Pentecostal (2 kinds) and Mennonite Brethren who all use the mode of immersion for professing believers. My only involvement otherwise was the Salvation Army who believe it is possible to experience the inward grace of which the sacraments are outward signs, without the need for the rituals themselves. They had concern that those outward symbols of Christian faith (Lord's Supper and water baptism) might be used as a substitute for a fully lived life of faith and love. And it is true that for some in certain churches, people have regarded their water baptism and/or church membership as their means of reaching heaven, their born again experience.

I suppose due to the Salvation Army not observing these sacraments some might label them as a cult.

Neto wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2024 12:51 pm She asked if I thought it was OK to ask for a "private baptism". I do not recall for sure how I answered - I was probably around 16 or 17 at the time, but now I would say that I think this would be fine. Some say baptism is a public demonstration, a public testimony. Frankly, I have not found any support for that in Scripture. The only thing I see is the command to do it.

I think it's preferable to have a public baptism, but the Ethiopian in Acts 8 did not have an audience aside from perhaps his chauffeur.

I would question your comment MOST anabaptists stayed free of it. And some was handles well. But not much LOL
I think the way I saw Sunday School handles in the groups I knew, it was much more beneficial than harmful.

But the influences are absolutely there. Even when there is merit, just hearing the phrases “more spiritual” sends shivers down my spine. But I am quite biased.

You would have to admit. I guarantee there are far more Mennonites that know Bill Gotherd and folks like that than would ever read a book written by Mother Teresa or the Dali Llama, but of those three, we sure know which lags far behind the other two in charity, wisdom and intelligence.