"Baptist" Successionism - "Amen"?

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Mark Osgatharp, May 27, 2003.

  1. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

    In these words of the blessed Savior, He promised to be always with His people as they went evangelizing, baptizing, and teaching, "even unto the end of the world." Jesus concluded this commission and promise with, "Amen."

    And yet some "Baptists" don't say "Amen" to this prophecy of the Lord. They say, "O no, it didn't happen that way." They say that Roman Catholicism took over, the truth was abandoned, scriptural baptism was lost and not recovered till after the Protestant reformation when a handful of separatists from the Anglican church got together and baptized themselves in England in 1641.

    I consider all such assertions an affront and an insult to the authority, and fidelity of the Heavenly Father, His blessed Son, and His Holy Spirit. I do not flinch to place all such rantings under Jude's description of "hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

    Though I might consider myself qualified to challenge the "1641 recovery of baptism" theory on historical grounds, that is not my intention here. My intention is to point to the fact that Jesus is the one who taught a succession of baptism. Therefore "baptist successionism" is the absolute truth of God and His Christ

    Amen?

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  2. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen from Frogman.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
  3. Bible Student

    Bible Student
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    AMEN From the Bible Student... [​IMG]
     
  4. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    You have not shown from the text that it was important "who" baptized. You have simply, and rightly, demonstrated that baptism was important (becuase of the role it played in planting churches). However, the "baptizer" is not the issue in this passage. This falls short of arguing for any successionism.
     
  5. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just exactly (and concisely) what is "successionism"? I believe Jesus taught the truth to his disciples and they in turn taught it to others and they in turn taught it to others, etc, etc, etc until today. Unbroken succession, is that what y'all mean? Or do you mean that there has always been a group of people who call themselves "Baptists" without interruption until today? Or what? I am really unfamiliar with this concept.
     
  6. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    That there have always been people who evangelized, baptized and taught the Word of God since Christ until now is not mine to dispute.

    That there was some sort of succession of someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized . . simply cannot be proven. [​IMG]

    Could it have happened? Sure. Did it actually happen? Odds would be long against it - like about a jillion to one! :rolleyes:
     
  7. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Successionism usually refers to the baptizer (person doing the baptism). Some like to think that they were baptized by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by someone ... all the way back to Christ. Therefore, there is an unbroken chain of succession with biblical baptisms. However, as Bob said, such a link cannot be proven. Moreover, such a link is never commanded or even spoken of in Scripture. It is a chasing after the wind.
     
  8. USN2Pulpit

    USN2Pulpit
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,641
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is this an example of Landmark doctrine?
     
  9. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry, Thanks for the clarification. At first I thought that there had to be an unbroken succession going back to Christ else there would have been a time when there were no practicing Christians in the world. Then it occured to me that what could be broken was INDIVIDUAL threads going back to Christ. We all have INDIVIDUAL physical threads going back to Adam. It is a physical impossibility for it to be otherwise. We could however, have broken "baptized by" threads. It is, indeed, unprovable, but, more importantly, also unnecessary.
     
  10. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would proper baptism, in its proper mode and with its proper subject not be considered a 'truth' that would be taught by the Apostles? If it is not a part of the doctrine then what is the need for it when it has no part to play in our eternal salvation nor no part to place us in a position of identification with the church. I just simply cannot understand this, I do not wish to be on the end that everyone thinks is wrong, but I cannot see my way past these issues I have stated.

    Plainly, Baptism (water) has no effect on the eternal position of any concerning salvation...(I completely believe this).

    Next, it is believed and taught that believers are baptized into the church by the Spirit, if this is so, then we each would belong whereever we find ourselves and able to enjoy all the benefits of membership in whatever body we are attendance with.

    Because this is not true (it cannot be if discipline is to be effective) then I can only see that believers are baptized into the Family of God by the Spirit and that water baptism identifies them with a particular local and visible body. In this way then it can be improperly administered and can even unknowingly be administered to improper subjects, but it cannot be altered as to purpose as to identify individuals with the local visible church. Apart from it there is no identification with such a local body.

    But, if it is part of the truth of the doctrine we are to teach, then it too would have enjoyed a perpetual succession from the time of the Apostles.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton [​IMG]
     
  11. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Okay, Dallas, I'm all ears. IF such a thing as succession of water baptism from Jesus (NOT John as his baptism was for repentance and Christian baptism is not) is possible, then prove it.

    Please start with the person who baptized you and then work backward. Should be 65-75 generations on the list:

    1.
    2.
    3.
    4.
    5.
    ...
    75. Jesus

    Thanks
     
  12. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fellows,

    Even if we were talking about "odds" - the odds would be that if baptism were perpetuated in the world from the time of Christ to the end, that it would be perpetuated from one baptized person to another. I dare say that most, if not all, of the Baptists in this forum were baptized by a baptized person, and that most, if not all, were baptized by a pastor ordained by a Baptist church. What sort of logic would lead anyone to think that it has not always been so?

    However, we are not talking about historical probabilities or odds. We are talking about the promise of Christ to be with his people as they were teaching and baptizing, "even unto the end of the world." All rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding, this does necessitate a "succession" of baptism.

    It seems that the primary objection to successionism is the lack of historic proof of it. I am familiar enough with Christian history to know that it is not possible to conclusively prove succession by the historical record.

    However, I am also familiar enough with the Scriptures to know what Christ promised and, therefore, I am morally obligated to believe in succession and to seek, as much as in me is, to discern which churches in the world today represent the succession.

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  13. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    It would also seem to me that the succession is further proved by the doctrine of the body administering baptism.

    Christ said in the commission to teach all that he commanded. Baptism is certainly a part of what he commanded. To say this is not succeeded over the centuries is then to say the teaching has fallen away.

    Bro. Dallas Eaton
     
  14. Mark Osgatharp

    Mark Osgatharp
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,719
    Likes Received:
    0
    Doctor Bob,

    Please start with the woman who bore you and work backward to Eve. Since we know of a certainty that there are 42 generations from Abraham to Christ that means approximately every 2000 years represents 42 generation. That makes about 1261.

    1.

    2.

    3.

    4.

    5.

    ...

    1261. Eve

    Mark Osgatharp
     
  15. Bible Student

    Bible Student
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    With God all things are possible! And if the church is important and it is, then the proper mode is important as well.

    Richard [​IMG]
     
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    But successionism is not about "mode" (though I disagree with that terminology). Successionism is about who performs the baptism, not about how it was performed.

    BTW, I disagree with the terminology "mode" because it is misused. As Hiscox said, "mode" of baptism relates to cold water/hot water/running water/still water/etc. Sprinkling or pouring is not a "mode" of baptism. It is not baptism at all. I think we need to strike that from our vocabulary.
     
  17. Artimaeus

    Artimaeus
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2002
    Messages:
    3,133
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rev. Sincere was "baptized" (sprinkled) by Rev. Ignorant who thought sprinkling was sufficient. After further study Rev Sincere discovers that immersion is better and begins to baptize his new converts by immersion yet, he himself is never immersed because he believes that sprinking isn't wrong just not as good as immersion. The future Rev A. is immersed, who in turn immerses the future Rev B and so on until I am baptized by the good Rev Q (Who is doing everything right). I do not have an unbroken succession of baptisms back to Christ. Is my baptism tainted even though for the last 100 years every baptism has been scriptural? Are you saying that EVERY line of succession is unbroken as is our physical lines of ancestry? I don't see that being taught in scripture.
     
  18. Bible Student

    Bible Student
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Likes Received:
    0
    Pastor Larry,

    I agree that the uses of mode in the context I used it was not what I really meant to say, I was going to go back and change it and got busy on something else.

    I do believe that the "mode" for lack of better word is important to distinguish between sprinkling or immersion. The only proper baptism is immersion.

    Richard [​IMG]
     

Share This Page

Loading...