Asking New Members about their baptism

[PresidingElder]

I wanted to ask if any one has a suggestion or two about how to effectively ask if one has been baptized according to Acts 2:38 without offending when accepting new members into the church body. I have a dear brother in Christ who has a new growing work. God through him are attracting many people from all denominal backgrounds who want to join the work and become active in ministry. Of course his #concern is trying to ask if they have been baptized according to Acts 2:38 without being offensive or challenging ones salvation. How could he ask or even verify without offending and if they have not, what verbage could be used to convey that as a requirement before serving in the ministry.

[scotty]

Don't ask , teach.

They will ask as God leads them.

[StillStanding]

Great question!

In my experience, the best way to approach new potential members is to have a special class titled something like, "What (name of church) Believes and Teaches". Encourage all new members to attend.

When you cover baptism, you explain in detail why your church believes the baptism in "Jesus name" is the correct formula for baptism. You don't need to tear down other formulas (trinity) at all! Keep it positive.

At our church, a high percentage will choose to be re-baptized in "Jesus name".

For the ones that don't join the others, just leave them be. Don't try to force the issue! Hopefully, with time they'll want to be re-baptized.

You have a choice with the new converts that refuse:
1. Let them be and except them with limitations. (i.e can't be in a leadership position )
2. Confront and tell them that "trinnies" aren't welcome around your church!

Which way do you think works best?

Note: Our church hardly ever preaches baptism in "Jesus name" from the pulpit, yet we have probably baptized more new converts in Jesus names than all the other churches in Tennessee combined!

[PresidingElder]

Mr. Steinway:
Thanks. This seems to be the best approach. I am glad to know that your church has a great baptismal record. How is the retention?

[Jack Shephard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Steinway

Great question!

In my experience, the best way to approach new potential members is to have a special class titled something like, "What (name of church) Believes and Teaches". Encourage all new members to attend.

When you cover baptism, you explain in detail why your church believes the baptism in "Jesus name" is the correct formula for baptism. You don't need to tear down other formulas (trinity) at all! Keep it positive.

At our church, a high percentage will choose to be re-baptized in "Jesus name".

For the ones that don't join the others, just leave them be. Don't try to force the issue! Hopefully, with time they'll want to be re-baptized.

You have a choice with the new converts that refuse:
1. Let them be and except them with limitations. (i.e can't be in a leadership position )
2. Confront and tell them that "trinnies" aren't welcome around your church!

Which way do you think works best?

Note: Our church hardly ever preaches baptism in "Jesus name" from the pulpit, yet we have probably baptized more new converts in Jesus names than all the other churches in Tennessee combined!

Your wisdom showeth forth.

[mfblume]

I showed people some encyclopedia references as to how baptism changed in the second century to the titles. Then I showed them Acts references where it was in Jesus' name and noted the apostles had insight that was lost. That made them think. Then they realized the catholic church was the culprit, and they did not like that RCC connection.

[SelahForever]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I showed people some encyclopedia references as to how baptism changed in the second century to the titles. Then I showed them Acts references where it was in Jesus' name and noted the apostles had insight that was lost. That made them think. Then they realized the catholic church was the culprit, and they did not like that RCC connection.

mfblume, I was wondering what you meant by your last sentence? Were those people offended at the implication the catholic church was the culprit? (In that they were offended you pointed that out to them in a way) Or did they realize the connection and wanted to distance themselves from the catholic church?

I'm just curious. I usually lurk here; but I wanted to know what you meant here. No agendas! Thanks.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by SelahForever

mfblume, I was wondering what you meant by your last sentence? Were those people offended at the implication the catholic church was the culprit? (In that they were offended you pointed that out to them in a way) Or did they realize the connection and wanted to distance themselves from the catholic church?

I'm just curious. I usually lurk here; but I wanted to know what you meant here. No agendas! Thanks.

They wanted to distance themselves from the RCC when they learned the titular baptism was RCC.

[Deo Gratias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

They wanted to distance themselves from the RCC when they learned the titular baptism was RCC.

Mr. Blume can you please explain what titular baptism is. I've never heard this expression before. As far as baptism goes, my understanding is that as long as the trinitarian formula is used it is valid. Baptism can be done via full immersion or pouring, either method surfices (see the Didache). Baptism infuses into the soul the seven virtues (faith, hope, charity, prudence, patience, temperance and fortitude) and leaves an indeliable mark on the soul and can never be undone. That is why re-baptism really is useless.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Deo Gratias

Mr. Blume can you please explain what titular baptism is. I've never heard this expression before. As far as baptism goes, my understanding is that as long as the trinitarian formula is used it is valid. .

So baptism in Jesus name as the diciples performed is invalid ?