Alien Immersion?

The first Baptist churches were Classical Arminians and is testified by their own confessions beginning in 1609. In around 1638 with the rise of the Particular Baptists we have the origin of Calvinist Baptists. There was no middle ground theology between these 2 Baptist movements. The vast majority of all Baptist churches today in the USA have their roots in the Particular Baptist movement. If you condemn Calvinism, you condemn your own church. Though I am a Calvinist, I do not de church the General Baptists who preceded us. There was no non Calvinist or non Arminian Baptist churches in the 1600's.

There is absolute no proof of Baptists existing before 1609. The Anabaptists of the 1500's and the Waldenses were forerunners of the Baptist movement but they were not Baptists though many baptist type principles existed among them. A Spiritual kinship exists but absolutely no succession except that Baptists were influenced by their view of baptism. There are no credible histories to say any Pre Reformation groups such as the Lollards, Hussites, Albigences etc..were Baptists.

I am not denying Church succession. I am denying a Church succession of Baptists going back to the book of Acts. There is solid proof that has never been refuted that both the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists were all dissenters from the Church of England. In a sense Baptists are a marriage of the English Reformation and the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists since Baptist soteriology (doctrine of salvation) mirrors that of the Anglican church and our view of baptism mirrors the Anabaptists. It is up to Church successionists to prove that Smyth, Helwys, Kiffin, Spilsbury were either not Baptists or somehow not dissenters.

John Smyth stated regarding church succession, I deny all succession except in the truth...There is no succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from heaven.” John Spilsbury on church succession There is no succession under the New Testament, but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God God has always had Him a people who are called by His name.

Baptist Historian Henry Vedder was correct when he wrote,

The church that he said he would build on the rock, to which he guaranteed victory against the gates of hades itself, is not a visible body—that is the great falsehood of Rome—but the assembly of those in all the ages who truly love God and keep the commandments of Christ. Of these there has been an unbroken line, and here is the true apostolic succession—there is no other. Through the continuous presence of this church and not along any chain of visible churches, the truth has descended to our days. Christ's promise would not be broken though at some period of history we should find his visible churches apparently overcome by Satan, and suppressed; though no trace of them should be left in literature; though no organized bodies of Christians holding the faith in apostolic simplicity could be found anywhere in the world. The truth would still be, as he had promised, witnessed somewhere, somehow, by somebody. The church does not cease to be because it is driven into the wilderness... If every church of Christ were to-day to become apostate, it would be possible and right for any true believers to organize to-morrow another church on the apostolic model of faith and practice, and that church would have the only apostolic succession worth having—a succession of faith in the Lord Christ and obedience to him.

 

I am not in love with the name Baptist, but I am in love with what it once stood for. In Canada, my particular group of Baptists claim that we are the nearest to New Testament examples of the local church. If these churches existed in the first century, where did they all go if we do not have some form of historical successionism? Certainly the Baptist churches did not exist before they were so named, but there has always been a "baptist" church down through time. This is my concept of landmarkism, as I was taught it.

The English baptists were equally divided between Calvinists and Arminians from the very beginning. This is why they split early on. Some Puritains were divided on doctrine along similar lines.

On the question of immersion as a form of baptism, immersion was universal until the Presbyterians took control of the British Houses of Parliament. Queen Elizabeth I was immersed. Many old Anglican churches have full baptistries under the floor in front of the platform (Table and pulpit). When the Presbyterian came to power, the national church began to sprinkle rather than immerse. If a person requests it, the Anglican vicar is obligated by church law, to immerse.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Dear Brother Bob,

You wrote: "Doctrinal variances on "eternal security" are rampant within Baptist circles as well as some arminian denominations like Assembly. Would you reject baptism by immersion from a non-calvinistic baptist church? I didn't think so."

Actually the vast majority of Southern / Missionary Baptist churches in Kentucky will not receive baptism administered by General and Free Will Baptist churches, which are common in parts of Kentucky. While these churches wear the label "Baptist", because of their views on salvation, I do not consider these churches to be True New Testament churches.

You also wrote: "The Free Church of which I was interim these past 14 months practiced only baptism by immersion. I baptized many."

I assume by Free churches you are referring to Evangelical Free churches. When I was in Bible College, a number of students were talking about how "sound" these Free churches were. So I did an internet survey of several Free and Missionary Alliance pastors. I asked them if they would administer or receive infant baptism and sprinkling as valid baptism. Every pastor that replied said the same thing. They only administred immersion, but would accept any baptism the person wanting to join was satisified with, regardless if it was infant baptism or sprinkling. In my opinion this disqualifies them from being New Testament churches.

 

I missed out on the early part of this discussion, but let me say unequivocally that in 30 years of pastoring independent, fundamental Baptist churches I never once baptised an alien. So obviously I do not believe in it! Maybe if Alf had come along sooner I might have considered it.

 

Most churches are true churches of Christ.

Most churches are able to support their doctrines biblically. The problems lies with biblical interpretation. It's rather presumptuous of a church, Baptist or not, to insist that it's the only one with a proper biblical interpretation.

 

Bro. Kiffin,

You wrote:
There are many Non Baptist churches that are more solid in their overall theology than many Baptist churches I know of. The weakness of a Non Baptist paedobaptist church such as a conservative Presbyterian or conservative Anglican church may be primarily on the doctrine of Baptism. Many Baptist churches I know of are weak on such things as salvation. Which of the Churches has more in common with New Testament theology?

I understand what you are talking about. However being “weak” on a point and being “wrong” on a point are two different things. Conservative Peadobaptist churches may be right on the money with salvation, but their infant baptism nullifies this. Even though some Baptist churches may not fully understand God’s role in salvation, as long as they teach a secure salvation through faith in Christ, in my opinion they are a New Testament church.

You also wrote: “Calvin and Luther did view Roman Catholic churches as having valid baptism though they believed their churches were corrupt.”

Interesting enough, in 1854, the Presbyterian General Conference meet in New York to discuss this the very point of accepting or rejecting Catholic baptisms. They all agreed the Catholic church was not a True church, but could not agree on what to do with their baptisms. The majority wanting to reject them, but a few old-timers realized that if they did this they would in effect being burning their own bridges.

You also wrote:
There is no Biblical basis to say that Baptists have a patent on being the only true churches. Landmarkism unfortunately attempts to patch together a form of apostolic succession for Baptist churches that has no basis in scripture. There are no perfect churches or denominations and each and everyone fails in some area.

You will notice in my former post I did not mention succession at all, although I strongly believe in the Trail of Blood. However valid baptism has nothing to do with church history, but everything to do with doctrine. The Biblical basis for rejecting non-Baptist churches as N.T. churches is Romans 16:17 and a host of other like-minded verses. I realize they were no perfect churches in the Bible and there are none today. The problem is that everyone draws the line at different places. I doubt you could find anyone on the BaptistBoard that would accept a JW baptism because of their doctrine. I believe the line should be placed at salvation and baptism. While this seems strange to some Baptists, it is the same line that Luther and Calvin agreed on.

By the way, you wrote: “John Spilsbury on church succession There is no succession under the New Testament, but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God.”

If you go to http://victorian.fortunecity.com/dadd/464/ you can read Spilsbury’s “Treasie on Baptism”. I think you will find that McBeth has misquoted him. It is clear from other places in this work that Spilsbury believed in a form of succession.

 

What is the requirment for baptism?
Acts, 8;36-37, After being asked by the Ethiopion eunuch" what hinders me from being baptized?" To which Peter replied "If you believe with all your heart then you may." To which the eunuch replied "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
There, is the requirment for baptism. If a person has truly placed their faith in Jesus Christ as their Saviour and been baptised, then who are we to tell them that their baptism was no good, or unnacceptable? I believe that by doing so we pervert the purpose of baptism. A person should not be required to be baptised again any more than they should be required to be saved again. I believe once saved always saved and once baptized always baptized. Believers baptism happens only once. If we make baptism anything more it seems that we run the risk of adding to scripture. The only place I can find in scripture that a person was re baptized is in Acts,19, when the people who had been baptised by John the baptist were baptized at that time in the name of Jesus.