Featured Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

The Baptist Historian Backus explained the change fo the Mennonites from immersion to puring in the following manner:

"The Mennonites are also from Germany and are of like behavior, but they are not truly Baptists now. Their fathers were so in Luther's time, until confinement in prison brought them to pour water on the head of the subject, instead of immersion; and what was then done out of necessity is now done out of choice, as other corruptions." - Isaac Backus

 

William H. Whitsitt was the professor of History at Lousiville Baptist Theological Seminary who did research in Baptist history on his sabbatical while he was away from the U.S. in England. He began searching the Bodleian Library or those ancient writings in England that date continuously back to 1602 but have further articles all the way back into the 16th century but noticed that beginning in 1641 there was all of a sudden a vast printing and debate of immersion. He researched LATER sources from those hostile to Baptists and concluded that mmersion was first introduced by paed-baptists turned Baptists first in 1641 and all Baptists previous to the year 1641 practiced pouring. He first published his findings not in any Baptist periodical or journal but in a paedbaptist paper under another name upon his return from England.

Other investigators discovered a critical error in his research. Prior to 1641 it was illegal in England for Baptists to publish their views or for any dissenter to publish their views other than the recognized state church. However, in 1641 there was a change of goverment and law allowing liberty to dissenters to publish their views. Baptists flocked to the printshop, as did other dissenters and began publishing their views most notably upon the very thing they were named after "baptism" or "Baptists."

Still other investigators discovered many writings prior to 1641 where not only Baptists immersed but even the state church practiced immersion of babies. They found laws against rebaptism by those they called Anabaptists and the term Anabaptist was printed on the first London Confession of Faith in 1644 as the term they were previously known by.

Since that time many others have gone through the Bodlean Library, including myself, and discovered first hand these same primary sources that clearly prove that immersion was commonly practiced long before 1641 not only by Baptists (Anabaptists as they were called) but by the state church in England so there was no controversy over the mode but only the candidate and purpose.

The 1641 theory has been disprove MANY TIMES by MANY HISTORIANS. Those who refuse to beleive it has been thoroughly disprove quote those who quote either Whitsit or his followers who attempted to defend his theory.

 

Definition:

Pharisaism- whatever I do not personally like.

 

Back to calling me a liar now, huh? At least you don't disappoint.

I know self-righteous judgementalism when I see it. His claiming that someone is living in sin because they haven't been immersed is just what I called it -- Pharisaism. Legalistic bull.

And if you can't keep a civil tongue in your wretched throat when talking to me, just keep your mouth shut and don't respond at all.

 

I go by credible and reliable historians. They prove you wrong.

You are the most vile thing on this forum! All you know how to do when backed into an indefensible corner is to call someone a liar. I shall not respond to you further. You cannot engage in civil discussion; you resort to personal attacks.

 

Definiton: Self-righteousness judgementalism that pretends to know the mind of God and speak for Him.

Your claim that someone who has not been immersed is living in sin and needs to repent is a sinful statement that shows you need to repent. It is you who is living in sin to make that statement and hold that belief. God will show you one day. Count on it.

 

Folks, if you want to know the truth about the original English Baptists concerning this issue, read McBeth and other credible, reliable Baptist historians, not J.T. Christian and the thoroughly discredited Baptist successionists.

 

You hypocrit! You are doing the very thing you are condemning! Think a minute. If you violate a command of God is that sin? Of course it is! If you believe that the scripture commands immersion as the only mode for baptism and substituting it with some other mode is to violate the teachings of scripture, then to call that violation sin is right? If that is what it teaches then to violate it is sin! He believes, like I do, that the scriptures clearly teach baptism MUST be by immersion only and we can demonstrate it. Hence, for either him or me to claim that submission to pouring or sprinking as baptism is sin is perfectly consistent with what we believe the Bible COMMANDS. So your charge of phariseeism is based entirely upon your OWN INTERPRETATON that the scripture allows for pouring and sprinkling for baptism WHICH YOU CANNOT PROVE!

 

By which you mean "paedobaptist" historians or historians YOU APPROVE of! Or historians that anti-immersionist historians approve of!:tongue3::tongue3:

 

The problem for him is that the quotations I have provided are from PRIMARY SOURCES and they cannot be proven wrong by his historians or any other historians because they say what they say.

He can't answer them so he attacks the historian who simply discovered and published them. Typical Catholic kind of response!

 

What do you do with their PRIMARY SOURCE materials that prove your authors are wrong? They are in the Bodleian Library for any objective person to read! Do you think Christian controlled the Bodleian Library????? Do you think McBeth denial invalidates primary sources he refuses to acknowlege??? Do you think only Christian has presented this undeniable primary source evidence that the 1641 theory is wrong?????

I have personally verified those quotations by personally looking at the microfilm copies in the Bodleian Library and so you are accusing me of lying, fabricating primary source materials????? What is your evidence? Historians like McBeth who IGNORE or are IGNORANT of those PRIMARY source materials?

 

Dr. T.T. Eaton knew William H. Whitsitt personally and also knew John T. Christian and read both of their works and he had this to say about Whitsitt's theory:

We have, then, briefly, the following conditions:
1st. It is admitted that there were Anabaptists in England before 1641, who were very strict in their belief and interpretation of the Bible, and were ready to die for their faith. But it is denied that any of them ever saw their duty in the Bible in regard to baptism till 1641, and then they all saw it at once and began to practice it.

2nd. It is admitted that these Anabaptists were constantly reminded of immersion by the rubric of the state church and by the writings of the commentators and scholars of the period. Yet it is denied that any of them took the hint till 1641, and then they all took it and adopted immersion.

3d. There is no account of any Anabaptist church's [sic] having practiced sprinkling and changing to immersion, and the absence of any such account cannot be explained on the "1641 theory."

4th. The only direct evidence offered in favor of the "1641 theory" is the statement of an anonymous document, the oldest extant copy of which is less than 40 years old, which is not, confirmed by any writer of the period, and which has been proved to be full of gross mistakes -- names wrong, dates wrong, titles wrong and facts wrong.

5th. The other evidence offered is circumstantial, and is, moreover, not to the point. The other testimonies cited to prove the "1641 theory" say nothing about 1641, but speak of these Anabaptists as "new and upstart," &c., which we would naturally expect when we remember that in 1641 the abolition of the persecuting courts left them free to publicly preach and practice their beliefs as they could not do before.

6th. We have actual documentary and monumental evidence of the practice of believers' immersion in England before 1641.

7th. It is claimed that "distinguished historians" have adopted the "1641 theory." Four names have been mentioned, but qualifications should be used in citing these names. On the other hand, it were [was] easy to cite scores of names of eminent historians who reject the "1641 theory." Not a single man in England has adopted it, so far as known, and many of them have distinctly rejected it. Surely historians in England can be supposed to know the facts of the history of England better than those in other lands. And, moreover, equally distinguished historians, and more of them, too, in this country distinctly reject the theory.

 

lets keep in mind that I Think that we all are in agreement that Immersion is the Biblical model, Christians SHOULD have it administered in that fashion...

Think also that it not a MUST be in that way in order to be saved, and IF the person beloieves their water baptism was 'valid; as per the scriptures, they are wrong, but the blood of jesus will forgive the error in that!

 

If anyone wants an indepth study by a modern Baptist historian on the history of early English Baptists then I would invite you to read the following website:

http://www.particularbaptistlibrary.org/LIBRARY/History/Particular Baptist Treasury_pound.pdf

Dr. R.E. Pound is recognized as an authority on Early English Baptist primary source materials.

reaou to

 

Baptists never suggest baptism saves anyone! Indeed, Baptists require confession of salvation PRIOR TO administrating baptism.

Since you admit the Biblical model is immersion then you are admitting any other model simply is not Biblical! You just got wet.

Furthermore, it is the BIBLICAL model that Baptist require for membership and are you suggesting that Baptists recognize UnBiblical administrations as Biblically acceptable????????

 

no! For if the person wants to join a local baptist body, needs to have been immersed originally , or have it redone, but was saying that others can hold to their baptists as legit, even though wrong, they will be forgiven by blood of jesus covering their mistake!

I do not hold that a Christian who belongs to a church that practices say sprinkling, as long as it does NOT regenerate them by just that act itself, will be a "less than" christian, just one who is wrong in that issue, justas you and i are surely wrong in something we profess as doctrine truth!

 

Do you have reading comprehension problems? Look at my first statement in my previous post! I clearly stated that salvation is not dependent upon baptism by any mode. However, church membership is dependent upon Biblical baptism.

Baptists never argue that water by any mode makes you more or less Christian! That is not the point. The point is Biblical Baptism is required for Biblical church membership. The church has nothing to do with getting to heaven but it does have to do with BIBLICAL service!

Baptism is not designed to determine salvation of anyone. It is designed to determine who can be a proper member of a New Testament church.

 

Okay, you initiated the name calling and continue it. So, I call you on it and raise you. You are a liar and hypocrite many times over. Happy? Your turn.

Better get my position right and stop misrepresenting it. I have never said that the scripture allows for pouring and sprinkling. I have said Jesus would not and does not agree with those who make it a legalistic requirement to be done without fail in every instance.

So, yes, in that case what I said goes: you and the good "rev" are being pharisaical about it.

I only replied to you here to correct your false statement about my belief.

 

I mean Baptist historians who are not delusional.

 

Lying slanderer.