Featured Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

While any or all of that may be true it does not matter. Deal with the issue in a real way and stop trying to create other issues to stop debate. That fella may still be right regardless of the other issues. Your argument is a fallacy.

 

I never appealed to Landmarkism! That is your straw man that you inserted into this discussion simply because you could not respond to the primary source materials that prove the 1641 theory is patently false!

You are trying to derail the discussion by inserting "Landmarkism" when it has nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the primary source materials that I presented to prove your assertion that Baptists administered pouring or sprinkling at first.

Stick to the subject instead of playing politics. When a person cannot deal with the evidence they either resort to attacking the person presenting the evidence, attacking the person (John T. Christian) who researched and provided the evidence in order to ridicule what they cannot deal with. That is precisely what you are attempting to do but the forum readers are too smart to fall for such trickery.

I have to go to town now. However, when I get back I will provide primary source materials from both non-baptists and Baptists between the years 1550 and 1641 to prove that immersion was the only mode used by Baptists in England and indeed was the mode used in England even by Paedobaptists during that same period.

 

In the year 1645, or just four years after the supposed introduction of immersion into England by Baptists according to the Whitsitt 1641 theory, a non-Baptist published a booklet entitled "The Dippers Dipt. Or, The Anabaptists Ducked and Plunged over Head and Ears, at a Disputation in Soutwark, London" and in this tract the writer said:

"This venomous Serpent (vere solifuga) flying from, and shinning head, and speckled skin, and thrust out his sting NEAR THE PLACE OF MY RESIDENCE, FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS."

You think our debates use rough langauge toward each other???? However, in 1645 Dr. Featly admits that those "Baptists" who he knew as "Anabaptists" had been practing immersion according to his own personal observation at least to 1625.

Think about one thing. The Particular Baptist were sufficiently established in England so that in 1644 they could provide a well thought out Confession of Faith. Hill Clift Baptist Church dated its origin to at least year 1357. The Church in the Hop Garden dated its orgin to at least 1481. The Church at Olchon dated its origin at least to 1419.

 

back to the OP...

is it that believers baptism by immersion THE one for baptists, while other Christians decide for themselves what mode is 'right?"

that the Lord will see this based upon how one views the scriptures as regarding baptism as to how?

Immersion binding unto baptists, other churches based upon their understanding of it?

 

if that is optional then why not every other teaching of God's word as well? The Bible speaks clearly about the mode of baptism in several different ways.

1. Context ("in Jordan" "much water" "up out"
2. Definition of terms "baptizo"
3. Explicitly expressed symbolism "buried"
4. Rejection of explicit terms for sprinkling and pouring

So it is not a matter of insufficient Biblical data! It is a matter of outright disobedience to God's explicit teaching.

 

just saying that to baptists Immersion IS the biblical way, other churches/groups can hold and teach the other modes... NOT biblically correct, but as long as they do NOT hold as having sacramental grace in it, NOT a Hill I wish to die on!

 

It looks like what you are saying here is immersion is fine for Baptist because that is the way we understand scripture and any other way is fine for everyone else because that is how they see scripture.

 

Perhaps that is the hill he wouldn't die on either???? That position says nothing the Scripture teaches is worth defending just let every man do what is right in his own eyes regardless of the Biblical evidence!

 

No, rather to me its more as the biblcal example is immersion, but the Lord saves us regardless of the mode of it, and IF a person is persuaded that sprinkling was valid, don't see the mandate to have them immersed unless they are trying to become now a baptist!

IF one sees sacramentalism in the baptism, or if one sees that one MUST be baptised in a certain way, jesus only, would die on that spiritual hill, not though to saying that unless one was immersed in the water, cannot have fellowship with you, or even see you as being saved!

 

If they refuse a biblical baptism then we can't force them. But they are not ok. In fact they are walking in sin until they repent.

Earlier this year I went on a mission trip to Israel We did some work supporting three different ministries in Arad and on Mt. Horeb. One of the ladies that went with is who lives in Canada always thought that her sprinkling as a baby was good enough. she had found out just before she came on the trip what Baptism was really about. She wanted to make it right so, even though she gave her heart to Christ some years ago I baptized her in the Jordan while we were there. True Christians will do the right thing when they are presented with the truth.

 

A person fully persuaded that it was biblical to have the water baptism administered that fashion is covered by the blood of Chrsit, for MANY presby/reformed and others just as saved by God as you and i were are persuaded due to their theology their baptism was "valid!"

 

I don't care how persuaded they are. Wrong is wrong.

 

Your primary source is John Christian, a Landmarker, views which have been totally discredited. You lose. Case closed. Or must I present Mr. Chubby Checker again to illustrate your dancing?

The Mennonites baptized by pouring, then and now; they influenced the original Baptists in England, the General Baptists. If you want to know the truth, study McBeth and other credible people. Relying on the false theory of Baptist successionism as proposed by John Christian leaves you without a leg to stand on. You have willfully ruined any credibility you want others to think you have.

Instead of making false accusations against me, I suggest you read some credible Baptist history.

 

You are walking in the sin of Pharisaism until you repent.

 

So according to your rationale, if any historians holds what you consider to be a false view in other areas of his theology than all the historical research, historical quotations from historical works are equally false?

Are you sure you want to argue down that line of reasoning?

Are you saying my research and quotations from the Bodlean library are fictious or do not say what they say even though I give thorough references that anyone can verify??

Are you saying that John T. Christians research and quotations are hoaxes, made up, false simply because He believed in Landmarkism?

Where is your evidence they are false or distorted? You are making a very serious charge against not merely me and my own painstaking research but against many other Baptist historians that have independently did their own research and confirmed these same quotations Christian cites.

 

You are a liar because you are not omniscient and you cannot possibly make such a charge as it would require omniscience to make such a charge!

 

I am saying credible Baptist historians contradict Christian and his "sources". That's enough for me.

 

Disprove the historical citations I quoted or admit you are the liar!

Anyone who argues that historical citations must be false because the historian holds to a particular ecclesiastical view has his head screwed on wrong!

 

No they do not! They totally ignore those historical citations! Christian is not the only historian that cites them. I have personally verified those citations by going to the primary source materials found in the Bodlean Library and I know they are factual and true.

 

That is false and there is evidence to show he did not baptize by pouring but by immersion. The modern movement does pour.

What evidence? Menno Simons on two occasions rediculed the baptism by Catholics as a "handful of water." Luther responded to that charge of a mere "handful of water" saying:

"In the second place, here is also the overthrow of the assertions of the Anabaptists and such like company. Who thus teach...the beloved baptism to despise, as to be nothing more than plain common water, from hence they indulge to slander it: 'What can a handful of water help the soul.'"

Menno Simons commenting on 1 Corithinians 12:13 said:

"Moses believed the word of the Lord, and errected a serpent: Israel looked upon it and was healed, not through tghe virtue of the image, but through the power of the divine word, received by them through faith. In the same manner salvation is ascribed in scriptural baptism [doope] Mark 16:16, the forgiveness of sins, Acts 2:38; the putting on of Christ, Gal. 3:27, BEING DIPPED INTO [indoopinge] one body - 1 Cor. 12:13"

Take note that the words "DIPPED INTO" are a translation of the term "indoopinge" which is comes from the same root as the term translated "baptism" [doope].