Question for Madists.

[Tambora]

Thank you for your response, Tambora.
I understand the non-denominational nature of MAD. But assuming that many/most MADists attend some sort of fellowship on a regular basis, one might expect that MADists would tend to fellowship often with other MADists. If that were the case, I am wondering if such a fellowship would celebrate sacraments.

Possible, I suppose.
I know of no MADs that gather together in groups to share bread and wine as a sacrament.
Most of the MADs I know here at TOL might someday get together to share bread and wine, but we ain't gonna think there is anything sacred about it.
We just be snacking and drinking.
:chew::cheers:

 

[musterion]

Every church or denomination that practices is some form of water baptism does it for a reason.

They may let you attend but if you want to actually join, they may say their version of water baptism does not impact your standing before God but you are expected to submit to it if you want to become fully one of them. You will not find an exception to this among those who practice it. You will never be fully welcomed as one of them if you have shunned or neglected their ritual and they won't forget it.

Where does the Bible set up water baptism as the necessary sign, seal and standard of Christian identity and fellowship?

Anyway, McLean had a good point on this. He pointed out that many of these people, especially Baptists, believe that their local assembly is the body of Christ and those outside of it might not be in the body of Christ (almost every group believes that whether they admit it or not). So if a group like that requires water baptism for full fellowship with them, they are automatically saying it's required for fellowship with Christ.

In fact, what they're actually saying is, you have to be water baptized to be a member of the Body of Christ (as they misdefine it).

"You want to get to Christ? You have to come through us and you have to get wet."

That means they have set up an alternate, false Body that one only gets to be part of by a work of the flesh, not through faith in Christ's DBR alone.

 

[musterion]

I've gone to a few regular churches, but didn't stay long enough to see what they preached concerning sacraments....except Catholic in my youth. After I was saved, I attended New Testament churches including home churches where some baptisms were done (in the river) if someone requested them, but it was never required or promoted as a means of salvation. Same with breaking bread...it was done occasionally as a remembrance for those who wanted to partake.

I recently spoke with a member of a nondenom evangie church (from the sound of it, a very, very relaxed Methodist church that is pretty much not Methodist anymore). They practice water baptism and, according to her, have it in their SOF for clearly stated non-salvational reasons. And yet, according to my friend they insist someone could join as a 100% full member without ever submitting to it.

If that account is true, then they're clearly confused because it raises an obvious question: what's the point of having it as a doctrinal practice if members need not subscribe to it?

Either w.b. means zero to them and they need to just do away with it as a useless waste of time...or I'm not being told the truth about how much weight it really carries for them.

 

[glorydaz]

I recently spoke with a member of a nondenom evangie church (from the sound of it, a very, very relaxed Methodist church that is pretty much not Methodist anymore). They practice water baptism and, according to her, have it in their SOF for clearly stated non-salvational reasons. And yet, according to my friend they insist someone could join as a 100% full member without ever submitting to it.

If that account is true, then they're clearly confused because it raises an obvious question: what's the point of having it as a doctrinal practice if members need not subscribe to it?

Either w.b. means zero to them and they need to just do away with it as a useless waste of time...or I'm not being told the truth about how much weight it really carries for them.

From what I understand, some churches look at it like a membership rite to the church group rather than the body at large. I can't explain it. It's part of why I never attended regular churches except long enough to meet like minded folks who were looking to get together in a home church. Then, it was open for people to share from the Word what the Lord had been showing them. The Lord was always faithful....incredible fellowship and teaching over the years.

 

[musterion]

All I'm saying is, almost everyone who believes in water baptism adds some often unspoken spiritual/sanctifying/obedience to God weight to it, and most often don't fully realize it until pressed. Then, when it's pointed out, they tend to get upset. That's been my experience many times. And speaking from my own background, I was able to hold those two contradictory thoughts in my own skull for some time, until I realized they can't both be true.

 

[Danoh]

All I'm saying is, almost everyone who believes in water baptism adds some often unspoken spiritual/sanctifying/obedience to God weight to it, and most often don't fully realize it until pressed. Then, when it's pointed out, they tend to get upset. That's been my experience many times. And speaking from my own background, I was able to hold those two contradictory thoughts in my own skull for some time, until I realized they can't both be true.

Lol - and then there is that self-water baptism by that self-made "Apostle" in that movie, The Apostle, starring Robert Duvall - that scene where he dunks himself in the water, had me in stiches :chuckle:

 

[musterion]

What's funny about what I posted.

 

[Danoh]

What's funny about what I posted.

Very well, then, an education on what I'd meant... :chuckle:

I was referring to how easily said imeressionists get upset when their obvious double-standard is pointed out to them.

"Oh, it's not necessary...but..."

 

[musterion]

Very well, then, an education on what I'd meant... :chuckle:

I was referring to how easily said imeressionists get upset when their obvious double-standard is pointed out to them.

"Oh, it's not necessary...but..."

Thank you for clarifying that. Yes, they do get upset. I once got upset.

But one other thing that time and distance has shown me is that the people who flat-out believe you have to be water baptized to be saved tend to get less fired up when arguing about it. They know exactly where they stand and why, and will go to the mat with anybody over it.

The people who get the most angry are those who, as you point out, are observing a double standard they don't (or didn't) recognize as such. Maybe the anger is just the beginnings of an awareness of cognitive dissonance. I know it was with me, and I couldn't abide it.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Water baptism may be a sacrament you are speaking of.

In the ministry of the 12 disciples, they were sent to baptize. Matthew 28:19
In in the ministry of Paul, he was not sent to baptize. 1 Cor 1:17

I think I would argue that the disciples were not sent to baptize, but rather their purpose was to make disciples. Paul's purpose in context is to preach. Not sure that that is much different from the purpose of making discples.

Also it is hard to see Paul's statement as being against baptism itself, but rather as being baptized by Paul, himself could or would contribute to the cult of personality that seemed to develop in Corinth.

But, the bottom line is that Paul, did, indeed baptize.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Every church or denomination that practices is some form of water baptism does it for a reason.

They may let you attend but if you want to actually join, they may say their version of water baptism does not impact your standing before God but you are expected to submit to it if you want to become fully one of them. You will not find an exception to this among those who practice it. You will never be fully welcomed as one of them if you have shunned or neglected their ritual and they won't forget it.

Where does the Bible set up water baptism as the necessary sign, seal and standard of Christian identity and fellowship?

Anyway, McLean had a good point on this. He pointed out that many of these people, especially Baptists, believe that their local assembly is the body of Christ and those outside of it might not be in the body of Christ (almost every group believes that whether they admit it or not). So if a group like that requires water baptism for full fellowship with them, they are automatically saying it's required for fellowship with Christ.

In fact, what they're actually saying is, you have to be water baptized to be a member of the Body of Christ (as they misdefine it).

"You want to get to Christ? You have to come through us and you have to get wet."

That means they have set up an alternate, false Body that one only gets to be part of by a work of the flesh, not through faith in Christ's DBR alone.

Even if one insists on baptism as a requirement for membership, I am not sure that that necessarily means that one sees the sacrament as requirement of salvation. Although some might.

The "oughtness" of ritual is very strong. I suspect that most on TOL have their own sets of "oughtness," but the things that ought to be done would, I am sure vary by individual.

As to the reason noted in the first sentence, I would suggest most would go with the verses you quoted in a previous post. You might argue that the verses do not apply, and you might be correct. But it would be a/the reason for their holding to water baptism, or their particular practice of water baptism.

 

[musterion]

Duck,

I know of no church or denomination that requires submission to water baptism SOLELY to become a member of that church, and that's it. There is ALWAYS some degree of prooftexted spiritual weight given to it, with the clear implication (at minimum) that God Himself will be displeased by your noncompliance...that it's not just a pastor and elder board you need worry about.

 

[Ktoyou]

Even if one insists on baptism as a requirement for membership, I am not sure that that necessarily means that one sees the sacrament as requirement of salvation. Although some might.

The "oughtness" of ritual is very strong. I suspect that most on TOL have their own sets of "oughtness," but the things that ought to be done would, I am sure vary by individual.

As to the reason noted in the first sentence, I would suggest most would go with the verses you quoted in a previous post. You might argue that the verses do not apply, and you might be correct. But it would be a/the reason for their holding to water baptism, or their particular practice of water baptism.

Some churches require it. I was river baptized, but do not think it leads to salvation. Only baptism by fire of the Holy Spirit leads to salvation.

 

[Right Divider]

Some churches require it. I was river baptized, but do not think it leads to salvation. Only baptism by fire of the Holy Spirit leads to salvation.

Baptism by the Spirit into the Body is not a "baptism by fire".

 

[Ktoyou]

Baptism by the Spirit into the Body is not a "baptism by fire".

Then, what is baptism by fire?

 

[Danoh]

Then, what is baptism by fire?

In a way, you are also right.

At the Cross, The Lord endured that fire of great tribulation: that cup of the Father's wrath that He poured upon Him in our stead.

In fact, the Lord had known such would be the case...

Matthew 26:38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. 26:40 And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 26:41 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.

Luke 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Talk about so great an anxiety that one so Devine; so Pure; so Innocent had ended up sweating drops of blood that should have been our drops of blood...

He well knew of the fire of the Father's wrath He was headed for, in our stead.

Further, the moment we trust that He died for our sins, the Spirit baptizes us - that is to say; identifies us as having died that fiery death with Him, Romans 6; 1 Cor. 12; Gal. 3; etc.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

So yeah, one could say that is a baptism of fire.

At the same time, there is this other baptism of fire - the wrath to come upon the world that Malachi was referring to in Malachi 3, and that John the Baptist was talking about, in Matthew 3.

Thank God then, for the baptismal fire of Romans 5:8 - in - our - stead!!!

 

[beameup]

I think I would argue that the disciples were not sent to baptize, but rather their purpose was to make disciples. Paul's purpose in context is to preach. Not sure that that is much different from the purpose of making disciples.

I believe that there was a lot more going on during the ministry of Jesus to his kinsmen.
I understand that the baptism of John was a necessary step to fulfillment of Exodus 19:6.

And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou [Moses] shalt speak unto the children of Israel.

The necessary step prior to the setting-up of the Kingdom, was for every Jewish male to go through the ritual washing [baptism] prior to becoming a priest. Clearly, the disciples were preparing for the "Millennial Kingdom" to be established. This of course, would be the "Melchizedek" priesthood, and not the Levitical priesthood.

 

[Brother Ducky]

Duck,

I know of no church or denomination that requires submission to water baptism SOLELY to become a member of that church, and that's it. There is ALWAYS some degree of prooftexted spiritual weight given to it, with the clear implication (at minimum) that God Himself will be displeased by your noncompliance...that it's not just a pastor and elder board you need worry about.

I would agree with you here. But that is not the same thing as saying that baptism is a requirement for salvation. Some might, but I suspect it would be a small number of groups.

"You ought to be baptized because Scripture teaches it" is not the same thing as "you cannot be saved if you are not baptized."

 

[Brother Ducky]

Interesting that that has been no follow-up on the Lord's Supper or on sanctification here.

 

[Right Divider]

Then, what is baptism by fire?

Their baptism with fire is in reference to the purging of Israel.