As I read more of this and this I realized that the issue is even more confused than I initially realized.

Our brother Jeremy said, “Due to the fact that the church was without a baptismal and the lakes were frozen I was given the option to be baptized via pouring or wait until the summer. I knew that the baptism via pouring was not completely perfect but reasoned that an immediate baptism via pouring was better than a delayed baptism. Had I known then that so much dissension and controversy surrounds the modes and timing of baptism I would have waited until the summer. Nevertheless, in my eagerness to identify myself with Christ and obey his Word I opted to be baptized by pouring.”

“I finally came to the conclusion that my initial pouring baptism was indeed defective and yet valid. As in all of our obedience, I see a degree of sin and error in it. And at the same time I am counting on God’s grace to “sanctify” my defective baptism that was done in faith and with a desire to obey his word.”

“Nevertheless, it was also my desire to be re-baptized by immersion so as to honor the policies, leadership, and polity of my church and its elders. Unfortunately, this concession was regarded as insufficient by my elders and they have (thus far) been unwilling to baptize me due to the fact that I still regard my initial baptism as valid and hope to see BBC’s membership policy change.”

Wherein lies the problem?

1. The initial act of pouring was realized to be “imperfect”, yet was accepted as valid. There is only one mode of baptism that faithfully represents the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and that is immersion. Thus, this baptism was not valid.

2. The pouring “baptism” is realized to be defective, yet accepted as valid. If my car had defective tires on it I would change them ASAP. Why should we not be all the more concerned to remedy defective practice in our spiritual life? Though Jeremy writes with much graciousness, and great conviction I cannot but wonder what path of logic leads him to his conclusions? Why consider that which is defective as valid? This seems to be more of an issue of subjective feelings than submission to objective truth. That being said, I’m sure we all have our blind spots. I do hope that he will come to decide that his pouring is invalid.

3. Finally, Jeremy desires to be “re-baptized” in submission to the elders and policies of Bethlehem. This is very admirable and gracious. I would to God that we would have millions with such a spirit! This, too, is a problem, though. The real issue is that submission to the truth of Scripture that requires immersion for baptism should be the motivation behind his seeking this “re-baptism” that would truly be baptism for the first time.

While many cry “legalism” about this requirement of immersion for membership in a Baptist church, this is not so. To cry “legalism” is so very close to an ad hominem argument. It is an easy way to dismiss the issue at hand. While I am not familiar with them personally, I do not think that the elders and Bethlehem are counting anyone who is unbaptized as unsaved. Neither do I think they are counting the unbaptized Christian as being second class, or lesser than others. They are simply standing for their convictions concerning ecclesiology and what constitutes a New Testament church. They are seeking to obey God according to the light that they have. Is that not what all who seek to honor Christ wish to do?

In the end, I must praise Jeremy (though I do not know him) for his gracious humility in this matter. Many people would become bitter, but he is trying to work through the issue in an humble manner.

I must also praise the elders of Bethlehem for standing up for their Scriptural convictions in spite of what could be intense pressure both from within and without.

I trust that, when all is said and done, Jeremy will write and tell the world how he came to understand the need for baptism by immersion (what else does baptizo mean?) and submitted to it in accordance with God’s Word.

Just musing………..