Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

[The Biblicist]

I notice you use Particular Baptists as your sources, such as Hanserd Knollys, who nevertheless says nothing about the original General Baptists or their mode of baptism. You never go to those original Baptists, the General Baptists, who were influenced by the Mennonite practice of baptizing by pouring.

Once again, I choose to believe credible Baptist historians such as McBeth.

Oh, and this from an article on Thomas Helwys: "Helwys and twelve Baptist émigrés returned to England to speak out against religious persecution.They founded the first Baptist congregation on English soil in Spitalfields, east end of London."

You are so married to your own opinions that you cannot even objectively consider primary source materials coming from the very years of this issue. Your historians are just like you. They are so married to their own philosophical agenda they will take the word of the enemies of Baptists (some living a hundred years afterwards) than the words of the very Baptists living in 1641. You talk about bias!!!

The primary source materials make the 1641 theory complete foolisheness and yet you and your historians are so PHILOSOPHICALLY committed to your position you don't care what the actual evidence says.

 

[The Biblicist]

Michael Wrenn is simply amazing in these posts.

You immediately discredit John T. Christian because of what he believed about Baptist origins. Who cares if his books were published by the Southern Baptist Sunday School Board and his 1925 History of the Baptists was the official Southern Baptist History book of its day. What does it matter that he made nearly a dozen trips to Europe studying primary sources. It's not important that when he died he had the largest Baptist library in the world. Who cares that the New Orleans Baptist Seminary library is named in his honor. He was just a backwoods ignore hick. Amazing!!!

Then when primary sources from the 1640's are given (such as Garner and Featley) you immediately discredit them even though they were eye-witnesses to these events. By the way, there are many, many more primary sources that say the same things as these two.

You continually fall back on Leon McBeth. Well I've read McBeth through numerous times and had the book as a textbook in both college and seminary Baptist history classes. It has good (very readable) and bad (very bias against fundamentalism, conservationism, etc.) points. But McBeth is far from an expert on Baptist origins.

There is still much to be discovered and discussed about Baptist beginnings in the 1600's. I have talked with many of the "so-called expert" Baptist historians today and they tend to just fall back on what McBeth or Torbet said without taking the time to study the issues for themselves.

If you want to read a real expert on this subject, check out Ron Pound and his Particular Baptist Library. He has read every single Particular and General work from the 1600's and has numerous writings on the subject.

Thank you! Dr. R.E. Pound and I have discussed this subject many times and you are right. He is the most knowlegable living authority on these primary sources. His website contains the greatest number of copies of these primary sources on the internet.

The credentials of John T. Christian as a historian is not only equal to McBeth or any other historian on this subject but his work still stands basically unscathed today even by his enemies.

 

[The Biblicist]

You never go to those original Baptists, the General Baptists, who were influenced by the Mennonite practice of baptizing by pouring.

William Kiffin writing in 1645 said,

"It is well known to many, and especially to ourselves, that our congregations as they now are, were errected and framed according to the rule of Christ before we heard of any Reformation, even at the time when Episcopancy was at the height of its vanishing glory." - William Kiffen, A Brief Remonstrance Of The REASONS and GROUNDS of those People commonly Called ANABAPTISTS, for their separation, &c. Or certain QUERIES Concerning their FAITH and PRACTICE, propounded by Mr. ROBERT POOLE; answered and resolved

Here is a clear claim that there were churches in England previous to King Henry the VIII.

Mr. Jospeh Richart confirmed this claim by Kiffin in his response, "You allege your practice, that your congregations were erected and framed in the time of Episcopacy, and before you heard of any reformation."

Hence, both Kiffin and Knolly claim their kind of churches with their kind of PRACTICE existed outside of London and long before King Henry VIII.

Notice, that you and your historians primarily defend your positon by SECONDARY sources and HOSTILE sources when PRIMARY SOURCES like this are available in great number that contradict such opinions of 20th century Baptist historians.

Kiffin wrote this just four years after the supposed reintroduction of immersion in England by Baptists.

 

[The Biblicist]

From a Primitive Baptist website, on Edward Drapes: "Edward Drapes was a ministering brother who walked with the Particular Baptist Church meeting in the Glasshouse or Glazer’s Hall in London. This church came into being from the Richard Blount mission to bring adult immersion back into England from the Collegians in Holland. Blount and his friends were not aware of any who then, 1640, practiced immersion of adult believers in England.".

Dr. R.E. Pound has all these primary sources materials on his website and has done more study in this area than any other living man today and here is his evaluation of the evidence bout Richard Blount and his friends:

Those involved in the Blount mission acted according to what we call true gospel order. There is no invalid or irregular practice here. The question is not about the origin of this church, but with the possibility of no one in England being yet under believer’s baptism by immersion. Please remember, this is from the Pedobaptist account, the Jessey Church Records. Here is the orderly origin of the church:

1. Orderly withdraw of members from their former church;

2. sending Mr. Blount over to the Netherlands because he knew their
language;

3. their reception of him and his return;

4. Mr. Blount, being already baptized in Holland, first baptized Mr.
Blacklock;

5. Mr. Blount baptized his group;

6. Mr. Blacklock baptized his group;

7. They form themselves into a baptized church.

Furthermore, it is admitted on all sides that they were seeking an authorized source for church constitution and immersion. Hence, the Netherland source had to practice immersion or the whole trip was senseless. Hence, nothing is wrong in the constitution of this church.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Biblicist, you and your allies can post all the vile accusations you want against me, but you are arguing solely from an invalid and discredited position: successionism. You do not consider General Baptist sources, you do not consider credible Baptist historians. Your sources are Particular Baptist successionists who MUST adhere to the fable of successionism to the exclusion of everything else. Only by doing so can you and successionists build and maintain your house of cards.

Your succcessionist doctrine has no more to stand on than the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. Both must manufacture fables for their existence. For the latter, Peter was the first pope because Jesus appointed him that; for you, Jesus was a Baptist because he was baptized by John the Baptist, and because God was a Baptist, so naturally all the NT churches were Baptist, and they continued an unbroken line of immersing Baptist churches right up until today.

RCC successionsim is wrong and a fable; so is Baptist successionism. Neither is scriptural or historical.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, you and your allies can post all the vile accusations you want against me, but you are arguing solely from an invalid and discredited position: successionism. You do not consider General Baptist sources, you do not consider credible Baptist historians. Your sources are Particular Baptist successionists who MUST adhere to the fable of successionism to the exclusion of everything else. Only by doing so can you and successionists build and maintain your house of cards.

Your succcessionist doctrine has no more to stand on than the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession. Both must manufacture fables for their existence. For the latter, Peter was the first pope because Jesus appointed him that; for you, Jesus was a Baptist because he was baptized by John the Baptist, and because God was a Baptist, so naturally all the NT churches were Baptist, and they continued an unbroken line of immersing Baptist churches right up until today.

RCC successionsim is wrong and a fable; so is Baptist successionism. Neither is scriptural or historical.

You think that just saying something makes it so???? Neither you nor your historians can respond to the primary source material so you conviently just condemn the source materials out of pure whim! We now see what basis of "credibility" your position really consists of.

 

[The Biblicist]

William Kiffin writing in 1645 said,

"It is well known to many, and especially to ourselves, that our congregations as they now are, were errected and framed according to the rule of Christ before we heard of any Reformation, even at the time when Episcopancy was at the height of its vanishing glory." - William Kiffen, A Brief Remonstrance Of The REASONS and GROUNDS of those People commonly Called ANABAPTISTS, for their separation, &c. Or certain QUERIES Concerning their FAITH and PRACTICE, propounded by Mr. ROBERT POOLE; answered and resolved

Here is a clear claim that there were churches in England previous to King Henry the VIII.

Mr. Jospeh Richart confirmed this claim by Kiffin in his response, "You allege your practice, that your congregations were erected and framed in the time of Episcopacy, and before you heard of any reformation."

Hence, both Kiffin and Knolly claim their kind of churches with their kind of PRACTICE existed outside of London and long before King Henry VIII.

Notice, that you and your historians primarily defend your positon by SECONDARY sources and HOSTILE sources when PRIMARY SOURCES like this are available in great number that contradict such opinions of 20th century Baptist historians.

Kiffin wrote this just four years after the supposed reintroduction of immersion in England by Baptists.

The above primary source materials from Kiffin along with that of Knollys and Dr. Feately completely and irrefutably destroys the imaginary 1641 theory for anyone who does not base their history on SECONDARY sources and historians who base their history on SECONDARY sources.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You think that just saying something makes it so???? Neither you nor your historians can respond to the primary source material so you conviently just condemn the source materials out of pure whim! We now see what basis of "credibility" your position really consists of.

I have already discredited your sources by direct quotes that contradict them.

But if you want to cling to your successionist fable, I surely don't care. You really shouldn't condemn Roman Catholics like you do, though, because you are taking a page right out of their book with your made-up, historically discredited doctrine.

RCC successionism and Baptist successionism: opposite wings of the same deranged, backwards-flying bird.

 

[The Biblicist]

I have already discredited your sources by direct quotes that contradict them.

You quoted no source to discredit a single primary source I gave. Where is your PRIMARY source to discredit Dr. Feately? Where is your PRIMARY sources to discredit Kiffin's quote or Knolly's quote or Robert Garner's quote??? I could give a dozen more primary sources that prove immersion was practiced long before 1641. I can quote John Spilsbury and the case with the origanization of Wapping Baptist Church in 1633 and where Spilsbury denies that a church can be constituted without baptism by immersion.

Where is your quote that discredits Edward Drapes assertion in the very year of 1641 that immersion and New Testament churches never ceased from the time of Christ until he comes again???? All you did was try to discredit the church he was member, but that is admission that immersion was in practice prior to 1641.

The only thing you have proven is that you are ignorant of primary source materials and what constitutes credible sources and credible historians. Credible historians are credible because they use PRIMARY sources and not SECONDARY sources. John T. Christian uses PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIALS while your historians depend largely upon SECONDARY source materials and that is why they are not credible.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You quoted no source to discredit a single primary source I gave. Where is your PRIMARY source to discredit Dr. Feately? Where is your PRIMARY sources to discredit Kiffin's quote or Knolly's quote or Robert Garner's quote??? I could give a dozen more primary sources that prove immersion was practiced long before 1641. I can quote John Spilsbury and the case with the origanization of Wapping Baptist Church in 1633 and where Spilsbury denies that a church can be constituted without baptism by immersion.

Where is your quote that discredits Edward Drapes assertion in the very year of 1641 that immersion and New Testament churches never ceased from the time of Christ until he comes again???? All you did was try to discredit the church he was member, but that is admission that immersion was in practice prior to 1641.

The only thing you have proven is that you are ignorant of primary source materials and what constitutes credible sources and credible historians. Credible historians are credible because they use PRIMARY sources and not SECONDARY sources. John T. Christian uses PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIALS while your historians depend largely upon SECONDARY source materials and that is why they are not credible.

Guess you need to read my posts more thoroughly.

Christian and successionism have long been discredited. Successionism is a fable without any historical basis.

Here is something for you to chew on: "In 1859, the Southern Baptist Convention approved several resolutions disapproving of Landmarkism leading adherents to withdraw gradually from the Southern Baptist Convention to form their own churches and associations and create an independent Landmark Baptist tradition."

You have no grounds for criticizing the RCC apostolic succession as a tradition of men when your successionist theory is the same thing.

 

[The Biblicist]

Guess you need to read my posts more thoroughly.

Christian and successionism have long been discredited. Successionism is a fable without any historical basis.

Here is something for you to chew on: "In 1859, the Southern Baptist Convention approved several resolutions disapproving of Landmarkism leading adherents to withdraw gradually from the Southern Baptist Convention to form their own churches and associations and create an independent Landmark Baptist tradition."

You have no grounds for criticizing the RCC apostolic succession as a tradition of men when your successionist theory is the same thing.

You are simply making assertions based upon personal opinion. Thanks anyway!

I know Landmark history within SBC a lot better than you do. I attended an SBC seminary, took SBC history, took Landmark Baptist History and have taught classes on it.

Your Wikipedia quotation is not historically accurate. There are still many Landmark Baptist chuches in the SBC today primarily in Tennessee, Missisppi, Arkansas, Texas and many other states. The American Baptist Association was formed in 1905 and that is what the wikipedia statement refers to.

However, even though the term "Landmarkism" (first used by J.M. Pendleton in his book "An Old Landmark Reset") was never used before the 1800's the doctrine as you admitted is found in England in the early 1600's and among the contiental Anabaptists who were penetrated by Waldenses preacher who taught historical succession back to the fourth century.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You are simply making assertions based upon personal opinion. Thanks anyway!

I know Landmark history within SBC a lot better than you do. I attended an SBC seminary, took SBC history, took Landmark Baptist History and have taught classes on it.

Your Wikipedia quotation is not historically accurate. There are still many Landmark Baptist chuches in the SBC today primarily in Tennessee, Missisppi, Arkansas, Texas and many other states. The American Baptist Association was formed in 1905 and that is what the wikipedia statement refers to.

However, even though the term "Landmarkism" (first used by J.M. Pendleton in his book "An Old Landmark Reset") was never used before the 1800's the doctrine as you admitted is found in England in the early 1600's and among the contiental Anabaptists who were penetrated by Waldenses preacher who taught historical succession back to the fourth century.

That's debatable, but, as I said, I have no problem with your believing in Baptist successionism, but you should cut the the RCC some slack about their doctrine of apostolic succession because both of you have equal basis for your views.

The common ground you and I have is a belief in believer's baptism and that there have been individuals and groups of Christians since NT times who have held to this belief and practice. I consider Baptists and Anabaptists to be my spiritual ancestors, and I honor them for the sacrifices they made in upholding NT teaching, apostolic practice, and religious liberty. They were persecuted nearly out of existence, in places, by Roman Catholics and Magisterial Protestants.

 

[The Biblicist]

That's debatable,

What isn't debated on this forum?

but, as I said, I have no problem with your believing in Baptist successionism, but you should cut the the RCC some slack about their doctrine of apostolic succession because both of you have equal basis for your views.

Apostolic succession and Church succession are not one and the same.

The common ground you and I have is a belief in believer's baptism and that there have been individuals and groups of Christians since NT times who have held to this belief and practice. I consider Baptists and Anabaptists to be my spiritual ancestors, and I honor them for the sacrifices they made in upholding NT teaching, apostolic practice, and religious liberty. They were persecuted nearly out of existence, in places, by Roman Catholics and Magisterial Protestants.

Ok, we have found some common ground.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What isn't debated on this forum?



Apostolic succession and Church succession are not one and the same.



Ok, we have found some common ground.

We had that common ground all along. Did you not realize it? You should have, based on the battles with our Lutheran friend alone.

 

[billwald]

"Does Baptism have to be by immersion?" If Baptist theology is correct, then only if one wants to join a Baptist church because baptism doesn't "do" anything except qualify one for membership in a Baptist church (or LDS?).

 

[Steadfast Fred]

The word 'baptism' in the Bible is from the Greek word "baptizo" and means immersion.

Based on what the Greek word means, there should be no question as to whether one seeking baptism should be immersed or not.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

"Does Baptism have to be by immersion?" If Baptist theology is correct, then only if one wants to join a Baptist church because baptism doesn't "do" anything except qualify one for membership in a Baptist church (or LDS?).

That's rather insulting, don't you think?

 

[The Biblicist]

If Baptist theology is correct, (or LDS?).

Bill, if Baptist theology is correct than any other mode is Biblically incorrect! So, if your question and conclusion is can people choose to disobey God's Word? Of course they can, they do it all the time.

 

[Yeshua1]

Bill, if Baptist theology is correct than any other mode is Biblically incorrect! So, if your question and conclusion is can people choose to disobey God's Word? Of course they can, they do it all the time.

Does God hold that against a Chrsitian though? We ALL agree as baptsits should be immersed, but will God still view that saint as living in sin IF they are ignorant of what the bible teaches, as perhaps their church did not?

 

[The Biblicist]

Does God hold that against a Chrsitian though? We ALL agree as baptsits should be immersed, but will God still view that saint as living in sin IF they are ignorant of what the bible teaches, as perhaps their church did not?

God never counts disobedience as obedience.