Featured Southern Baptist Polity In 1948

I read that article. He doesn't mess around, does he?

This is one reason I have difficulty with lumping all believers into a Universal Church. It must follow that most of those believers embrace groups which believe and teach gross error.

Baptists aren't perfect, but they (and those of like faith and order) are the closest thing to New Testament churches there are. And by extension, the others are not.

 

Another point, there is no mention of the/a universal church in our church covenant. Baptist chuches model themselves after a local-visible church. Protestant churches are modeled after a universal-invisible church, and Catholic after a universal-visible model. These are three distinct differences, and open communion is not an agent of crossing that line.

 

Denominations that almost 100% practice closed communion are Roman Catholic and Church of Christ.

Some Baptists practice it, as well as some conservative Lutherans.

 

So you would place Spurgeon as a liberal?

 

Interesting the things that get associated with Liberalism.
Basically it seems that if someone disagrees with a point of doctrine that another holds to then they are a liberal.

 

That is a very good observation. Not always, but at times the words good ole days, conservative, Republican, Godly, and KJO become interchangable adjectives.

 

I think the term "alien immersion" is funny and even silly. I get a picture of someone dunking a little green man, or E.T.

 

Oh, I know what it means. I just think it is ridiculous, legalistic, and Pharisaical. I think Jesus would have some choice words for the practice -- "straining a gnat" comes to mind.

 

Let me throw out this question: Are there religious groups whose baptism you would not accept? Since I'm assuming that the answer is yes, the next question is why not? What is wrong with their baptism?

If yes, does it have something to do with doctrine and practice?

I assumed your answer is yes, but I'll await your answer before going ahead.

 

And I'll answer you with this question: When does exclusivity go too far? Since the earliest Baptists used pouring instead of immersion, does that disqualify them from being counted as Baptists by some modern-day Baptists? I just wonder what Jesus would say about His followers who would exclude other of His followers because of something having to do with an outward ritual, that ritual not being considered essential to salvation.

Funny, but I thought Baptists believed the only thing necessary to salvation was faith in Jesus Christ, not that plus a strict adherence to a ritual done in a prescribed way by a prescribed group.

 

I don't want to get into this "you answer my question first" mode. It's not very productive.

First, would you document your claim that early Baptists poured instead of immersed?

Second, Baptists consider themselves as New Testament Christians. The New Testament mode of baptism was immersion.

Third, Baptists were persecuted and killed for their views on baptism. Doing it the Bible way is not unimportant. In fact, the correct baptism is the mark of a true New Testament church.

Fourth, a disturbing trend in some Baptist churches is that they have decided exclusivity goes too far.

 

In post #8 West Kentucky Baptist mentioned some former pastors of my church, among them Wendell Rone. His views on baptism and the Lord Supper have been a strong influence on my opinions. He wrote a booklet on the ordinances. Here is what he said about baptism. To be Biblical it must have:

1. The proper subject. That is, one who has confessed Christ as Lord--a believer.
2. The proper design. To picture the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus. It is not sacramental but symbolic.
3. The proper mode. Immersion. The New Testament Greek word "baptizo" means to dip or plunge, not sprinkle or pour.
4. The proper administrator. One authorized by a local New Testament church. That means Baptist or like faith and order.

Many of you will agree with the first three. The fourth is where all the controversy is.

 

Wendell Rone has been gone for several years, but his legacy remains in Western Kentucky and beyond.
Here's a profile by Ben Stratton, a pastor in Western Kentucky:
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/rone.wendell.bio.html

I think West Kentucky Baptist knows Ben Stratton very well.

 

What if games could go on forever. If a person was truly saved he or she would be saved regardless of how they were baptised. However, if they are baptised by any other mode than immersion, and as a sign of the death, burial and Ressurection of Jesus Christ in their lives and not a regenerational ceremony, then they have not obeyed the NT model of baptism. That also includes getting baptised under the authority of a local church. Why would someone do that? If a person is saved and wants to obey the Lord, why go off on a tangent. However, to answer your question, once the Lord saves someone, they are saved for eternity. This is not a license for blatant, unrepentent sin, as this is a sure sign they were never saved in the first place. But yes, in a technical sense it is possible to be saved then baptised by some other means. That does not negate your salvation. At the same time, it makes no sense why someone would follow that course.

If a frog had wings, he would not bump his backside when he hopped.

 

Before the rise of the Particular Baptists, there was no uniform mode of baptism among the first (original) Baptists, the General Baptists, they having been influenced to varying degrees by the Mennonites.

"The question of baptism by immersion before 1641 was a major topic of concern among the early Calvinistic Baptists. By 1641, adult baptism by immersion was becoming the prevailing practice for many Baptists congregations." This was taken for an article entitled "English Dissenters."

That is just one source, but it should suffice.

Baptists were persecuted and killed for their views on the subjects of baptism -- believers -- not on the mode.

I would agree that scholars agree that immersion was normally the New Testament mode, but when immersion could not be had, other forms were permitted. Consider the following from The Didache, a document first composed between 60-80 A.D. (with later additions):

Now about baptism: this is how to baptize. Give public instruction on all these points, and then baptize in running water, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.. If you do not have running water, baptize in some other. If you cannot in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It goes against the spirit of Jesus's teachings to take a legalistic attitude toward the ordinances.

I hold to believer's baptism, and I believe immersion most perfectly pictures the salvation experience and process, but I refuse to be pharasaical about it and exclude those who may have been baptized another way, especially since I don't believe that water baptism is necessary for salvation.

I could say more, but that's enough for now.

 

Would you please elaborate on this part of your post? Thanks

 

I didn't remember reading anything about Baptists being murdered because of the mode of baptism they used; they were murdered, as were the Mennonites and other Anabaptists because of their views on religious liberty, church-state separation, and believer's baptism.

But I just remembered reading, quite a while ago, about Dissenters who practiced immersion being killed by drowning as a parody of that belief. So, I retract my earlier statement.

Still, most of the persecution and murder was done to Baptists and Anabaptists because of the other issues I listed rather than the mode of baptism.

Thanks for your question; it somehow helped me to remember an important point that I had temporarily forgotten.

 

The Didache and other early writings may very well chronicled the differing views and practice over baptism. But any departure from immersion was never justified because immersion wasn't the New Testament mode. It was justified on the basis of convenience. It required one to deliberately ignore the words of Jesus and the other writers.

It certainly doesn't smack of Phrasaicalism or legalism to desire to be faithful to the clear word of Scripture.