Featured Recognizing irregular church doctrines.

John's baptism was New Testament, with the Authority of God, Himself.

Proper baptism is always by immersion, of the right person (saved), for the right reason (representing a picture only) and by the right authority (a New Testament patterned church that came into existence as a result of the Great Commission (make disciples/get souls saved by the preaching of the Gospel for salvation, baptizing them, Biblically, as stated, and having been 'taught all those things Jesus Commanded', i.e., teaching those things not Commanded by Jesus excludes a 'church group' from having authority to claim they have authority to, or are, carrying out The Great Commission.)

Scriptural Baptism/believer's baptism, as properly performed as stated above, is a principal distinctive of Baptist-like New Testament church assemblies, like the kind Jesus built, since He did so and Promised to be with her, as He most certainly has.

In doing so, they cease to be distinguished as 'Baptist-like'.

Some did.

Jesus was on the outside of the church at Laodicea, because they were not hot or cold and He would spew them out of His mouth.

Did they maintain their 'candlestick' with Him. He didn't Promise to not remove a churches' candlestick, if they ever had one. Jesus takes Worship serious.

'Pouring' is more of an abomination, just as 'sticking the rock twice'.

John's baptism, as a man sent from God to do that very thing, is water baptism, by immersion.

I don't know if you agree or not, but of the figurative uses of 'baptism' is Jesus immersing His kind of church He Founded, with The Holy Spirit, on the Day of Pentecost.

Jesus 'baptizing with fire', in context (Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable) is a warning to those that better bring forth fruit met for Repentance (as having been saved) or they were in danger of being submerged in the Lake of Fire (figuratively, again, 'baptized with fire').

That would be blood-curdlingly incorrect, in every sense except getting our clues on doctrine from Google, or worse, like Didache, for God's sake.

 

As if the Holy Spirit has ever baptized anything or anyone.

As if 'the body of Christ' is not a Corporate Metaphor expressing local church 'bodies' and misinterpreted as The Kingdom of God.

As if there is ether of these, much less, their combination being another Gospel.

As if The Bible doesn't speak of "one baptism".

As if this hasn't been repeatedly demonstrated as way irregular.

So, this is five more additions to church irregularities.

Thanks.

 

Huh, I have never heard of this.

 

I 'guess' you know about this teaching about the Authority of God of John's baptism(?), when

Jesus' Authority is Challenged

(Matthew 21:23-27; Luke 20:1-8)

27 "And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders,

28 "And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

29 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things.

30 "The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me.

31 "And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him?

32 "But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

33 "And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things,"

in which Jesus equates The Authority of God with John's baptism.

"As aptly put, by Gill: "...which must be understood, not of the ordinance of baptism singly, as administered by John, but of the whole ministry of John;

"as of that ordinance, so of his doctrine concerning repentance and remission of sins;

"and concerning Christ that was to come, and concerning his being come, and who he was, whom John pointed at, and taught the people to believe in:

"but perhaps he might know very little, if anything, of the miracles of Christ, or of his death and resurrection from the dead, and the benefits and effects thereof; and of the pouring out of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles, and the light and knowledge which were communicated by 'the baptism of John'.

"...and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly; these two doubtless had received a considerable measure of evangelical light and knowledge from the Apostle Paul, during the time of their conversation with him; and as they freely received from him, they freely imparted it to Apollos, with a good design to spread the truth of the Gospel, and to promote it and the interest of Christ in the world: and as on the one hand it was a good office, and a kind part in them, to communicate knowledge to him, so it was an instance of a good spirit, and of condescension in him."

These disciples were apparently saved (vs 1; called, "certain disciples", vs 2 "since ye believed?" that is, in Christ) (Gill "and these do not seem to be persons, who were either converted by Paul, when he was at Ephesus before, or by Apollos, who had been there since, and was gone; but rather some who came hither from other parts,"

but they were water 'baptized', by someone without the authority of God, which John's baptism would have had, because Paul didn't recognize its authority since they hadn't heard of The Gift of The Holy Spirit that had accompanied John's baptism after Jesus had baptized His church at Jerusalem with The Holy Spirit (another Comforter He Sent) on The Day of Pentecost so, although they had heard that it was John's baptism they had; they were saved but had apparently not. And they were also probably 'baptized IN THE NAME of JOHN", rather than getting a clearer message of Jesus since it says, (vs 5, "they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus");

4 "Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."

"...that they should believe on him, which should come after him", (Gill) that is, on Jesus Christ; so that he preached faith in Christ, as well as repentance towards God; and made the one as well as the other a necessary prerequisite unto baptism; which shows, that his baptism and Christian baptism are the same.

Were you trying to say John's (directly by the authority of God) and Paul's water baptism (by the authority of the church at Jerusalem that sent him out by vote) were different?

Acts 19:5
"When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus"

by Paul's water baptism (by the authority of the church at Jerusalem that had received authority from John, who recieved it from God the Father),
then;

Acts 19:6
"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

"And when Paul had laid his hands upon them,...."

After being water baptized by authority, as taught in the Bible,
Paul laid hands on them to give them the Instantaneous Miraculas Gift of The Holy Spirit:

(Gill);
"just as Peter and John laid their hands upon the believing Samaritans, who had been before baptized by Philip, Acts 8:14 and the same extraordinary effects followed:
the Holy Ghost came on them; in his extraordinary gifts, whose special grace they had before an experience of:

"and they spake with tongues; with other tongues, or in other languages, which they had never learned, or had been used to, as the disciples did at the day of "Pentecost": and prophesied; preached, having an extraordinary gift at once, of explaining the prophecies of the Old Testament, and also foretold things to come."

 

If Scripture is correct, you are sideways with God
on your dismissal of Baptist-like authority and Perpecuity:

"This evidence is not beyond dispute but it is more than sufficient if we are willing to believe the promises of God's Word." - Roscoe Brong

adapted from: Baptist Perpecuity:

"Upon this Rock," said Jesus, referring to Himself, "I will build my church; and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it" [Matthew 16:18].

Since there is no just reason to do otherwise, we must understand that Jesus used the word, "church" [Greek "ekklesia] in Matthew 16:18 in the same general sense that it has everywhere else in the New Testament: that is, an assembly, almost always an organized assembly. The word here is used abstractly; that is, it expresses an idea whose realization is to be found in a particular organized assembly.

"If he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever, ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" [Matthew 18:17-18].

"Obviously, the reference here is to an organized assembly; and obviously such organized assemblies must always have existed from that time to this in order that faithful followers of Jesus might obey His instructions here given."

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular" [1 Corinthians 12:13, 27.].
"Verse 27 of this quotation tells what kind of body is meant in verse 13: the kind of which the church at Corinth was an example. I Corinthians 1:13-17 shows what kind of baptism is meant: namely baptism in water. In fact, there is only one kind of baptism recognized in the New Testament as an ordinance of Christ: all other so-called baptisms are figurative or symbolic, deriving their significance from this baptizing in water to declare the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and all that this means to us...if it is a church ordinance, then there must always have been churches to administer the ordinance."

"As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come" [I Corinthians 11:26].
"Again, practically all Christians recognize the Lord's Supper as a church ordinance. But how could the ordinance be continued if at any time there were no true churches to observe it? Note that the Scriptures give no hint of any possible lapse or failure of our Lord's churches to declare or show forth His death by eating this bread and drinking this cup "till he come."

"If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. They have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree" [I Timothy 3:1, 13].
"But if bishops and deacons were officers in the kind of church that Jesus built, and if this kind of church passed out of existence, as Protestants allege and as ignorant Baptists admit, then by whose authority are such offices named today?"

"Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone; in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord: in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through the Spirit" [Ephesians 2:19-22].
"Paul was writing to the church at Ephesus and he reveals here the glorious fact that a true New Testament church is a holy temple in the lord, and that one purpose for which the lord built His church at Ephesus, and we believe, every other true New Testament church, is that God in the Spirit might dwell therein.
"Can anyone believe that God, having chosen to manifest His presence in a special way in the churches of the Lord Jesus, allowed His purposes to be frustrated so that for centuries He had no such habitation on earth? But Protestants do so declare, and countless Baptists, ignorant of or indifferent to their blood-bought heritage, are deceived by or are silent in the face of this monstrous lie!"

"Ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead" [Romans 7:4]. "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it" [Ephesians 5:25 -- read on through verse 32].

"Was our Lord at any time betrothed to a dead bride? After He gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her by the washing of water in the Word, that He might present her to Hi m s elf in glory -- after all this, was there ever a time when nowhere on earth could be found a church that could be truly called His bride?"

Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" [Matthew 28:18-20].

"But an organized assembly of baptized believers, such as Jesus had constituted His disciples, can do what He commanded and in doing so can claim the promise of His continuing presence -- and it is the only organization of earth that can do so.
"Jesus promised this kind of church that He would always be with it, even to the end of the age. Be He could not be with it unless it existed to be with. Therefore if Jesus spoke the truth He has had His churches in the world ever since and He has been with them all the time -- and so it will be to the end of the age."

"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end" [Ephesians 3:21].
"We have here a Spirit-inspired declaration or prayer. If it was a prayer, as the KJ version indicates, it nevertheless declares an assured fulfillment, for the Holy Spirit does not inspire vain prayers. "He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God" [Romans 8:27].
"Therefore we understand that God gets glory in the church in Christ Jesus. This was true in Paul's day and it was to continue "unto all the generations of the eons of the eons," an expression of eternity beyond our comprehension."

"These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" [1 Timothy 3:15].
"Speaking of the church as an organized assembly, as the context clearly shows, Paul here calls it "the pillar and ground of the truth." That is, the church not only, as a pillar or column, upholds the truth, but it is the foundational support of the truth.
"Here we have the explanation for the wholesale loss of Bible truth by false churches and unattached Christians. It has pleased God that His church should be the pillar and ground of the truth, and so it has been through the centuries."

 

from: https://www.baylor.edu/content/services/document.php/224504.pdf

I take exception to the 6 statements marked in blue, below:

"God loves us and wants us for his own. At some point we may be able to apprehend God’s grace and accept it for the gift that it is. But these are two ends of a single continuum, and while some Christians focus on the giving of grace through infant baptism, others focus on the receiving of grace through believer’s baptism."

But especially, "others focus on the receiving of grace through believer’s baptism".

What kind of non-Biblical junk is this?

"Reasoning with a sin-cursed mind" vs The Bible is what I call it.

We could go on and on, from that article, right?

"...the first of several conversations about the Greek word baptizo, and how it means “to plunge under water, almost violently” (my predecessor was not the only one to point that out).

"While these arguments made good sense when we were talking about how Baptists make converts, they did not make sense when we were talking about..."

"Again and again she was encouraged to be immersed by people who wanted to nominate her as a deacon", (?)

"How important is the mode?" (?) To God, Who sent John the Baptist to baptize in water, by His Authority? and said of Jesus' baptism that He was Well Pleased after Jesus told John, "And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness"
Matthew 3:15 (?)

"Practically speaking, is there any real difference between being plunged under water and having water poured over you?" (?)

"Baptism thus becomes a drama..." (?)

"Frederick Buechner, a Presbyterian minister, calls immersion a “better symbol” than the alternative, and adds, “Going under symbolizes the end of everything about your life that is less than human. Coming up again symbolizes the beginning in you of something strange and new and hopeful. You can breathe again.”2" (?)

"But earlier in the same essay Buechner admits, “Baptism consists of getting dunked or sprinkled." (?)

"3 And although Paul speaks of baptism as a symbol of death, burial, and resurrection in Romans 6, to the Corinthian Christians he describes it as a symbol of coming clean: “You were washed,” he says to those former wrongdoers, “you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 6:11). “If it is washing that we are talking about,” Pam might ask, “can I not get just as clean by taking a shower as by taking a bath?” (?)

"... if we can recognize that Paul himself thought of baptism in more than one way," (?)

It is JUNK. FLESHLY JUNK.

I have to stop with this JUNK.

...
Baylor Core Convictions:

"Our goal is intellectual activity
that springs from disciplined habits of the heart and inspires action on behalf of the world."

One mention of Jesus:

• Equip individuals to understand life as a divine calling and thus serve society and the world in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;

That's it. Nothing about The Bible, Regeneration. Things like that.

So, they are, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ".

Not the most convincing testimonies I've seen of Born Again Christians.

Is that something anyone is supposed to assume?

That anyone, saying anything, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" is BORN AGAIN? WHEN THEY ARE AT ODDS WITH THE WORD of GOD?

Ask me if I call them, "Baptist".

Ask God what He thinks of them.

Better yet, claim them as a MISSION FIELD.

 

from:

THE WALDENSES WERE
INDEPENDENT BAPTISTS

An Examination of the Doctrines of this Medieval Sect

By Thomas Williamson

CHAPTER ELEVEN

CONCLUSION: BAPTISTS EXISTED
PRIOR TO THE REFORMATION, AND ARE NOT PROTESTANTS.


"The absurd charge that the English Baptists did not practice immersion before 1641 has been thoroughly refuted by Armitage, Goadby, Ray, and other careful church historians.

"But even if that falsehood was admitted as truth, it would not prove that there were no other Bible-believing immersionists elsewhere before 1641.

"Many, if not most, of the 16th-Century Anabaptists, practiced immersion; their Reformed enemies executed many of them by drowning, as a cruel parody on their Scriptural practice of immersion of believers.

"Modern historians would have us believe that the Anabaptists, many of whom were true Baptists, suddenly arose out of nowhere in various regions of Europe in the 1520's, and that there were no believers of that kind anywhere on earth before that decade. The Lutheran historian Mosheim did not teach any such nonsense:

"(The Anabaptists) not only considered themselves descendants of the Waldenses, who were so grievously oppressed and persecuted by the despotic heads of the Romish church, but pretend, moreover, to be the purest offspring of the respectable sufferers, being equally opposed to all principles of rebellion on the one hand, and all suggestions of fanaticism on the other.

"It may be observed, continues Mosheim, that they are not entirely in an error when they boast of their descent from the Waldenses, Petrobrussians, and other ancient sects, who are usually considered as witnesses of the truth in times of general darkness and superstition.

"Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and Germany, many persons who adhered tenaciously to the doctrine, etc., which is the true source of all the peculiarities that are to be found in the religious doctrine and discipline of the Anabaptists. [3]"

[3] Quoted in S.F. Ford, The Origin of the Baptists, Texarkana, Bogard Press, 1950, pp. 27-28.

 

Did Any English General Baptists Practise Immersion Before 1641?

"This question, I think, must be answered in the affirmative, but thus far only one passage has been found to demonstrate that fact.

"This information is found in the second part of William Britten's "Moderate Baptist"1, 1654, and reads in its context as follows2:

"-"Baptisterium, that vessel for sprinkling or washing, callad [called] a Font, wee read not of in Scripture, it being another of their inventions. And for the further information of the manner, note the word immergo, to plunge, dip, in, or overwhelm; . . . Thus in the command of Christ they forsake him the fountain, and hew to themselves a broken Cistern."

1 This sentence without doubt means that this anonymous (English) Anabaptist in 1635 baptized his converts by immersion, or "dipping".

 

from:

"PART ONE: Origin of the English Baptists

Chapter II

Particular Baptists

"Elder Sylvestor Hassell makes the following statement concerning the origin of Particular Baptists. "In 1633, September the 12th, the first Particular Baptist, or Calvinist, or Predestinarian English Baptist Church was founded in London, under the pastoral care of John Spilsbury, from those members of an Independent Church who rejected infant baptism; it was called Bond Street Church, and was in the parish of Wapping, London." Elder Hassell provides no further information as to the origin of this church so far as succession is concerned.

"A more detailed account of the origin of Particular Baptists is Found in Underwood's History of the English Baptist. Though similar in outcome the circumstance is slightly different. First noting this group has its origin with Puritan and Pilgrim Father John Robinson, it reads, "In 1616 Henry Jacob and some of the exiled Independents returned to England from the Netherlands and began work in London. In 1633, John Spilsbury and a few others left this church, apparently because they had come to oppose infant baptism."

Robert Torbet provides additional details. His account indicates some twenty years after the Helwys group returned to England a friendly division occurred. In September 1633, by honorable dismissal, several members separated themselves from Helwys' congregation and formed an independent church constituted on Calvinist principles. Shortly thereafter John Spilsbury was elected their pastor. Within a few years this congregation came to be known as Regular or Particular Baptists. Their name was adopted based upon their belief in particular redemption.

Torbet's account also explains an apparent link up of the former Smyth and Robinson groups. He cites the presence of Lathrop as an early leader of the group formed in 1616. From this it may be assumed that the two groups merged when John Lathrop and his group left the fledgling General Baptist congregation. Thus, his reference to two branches under Henry Jacob may result from these separate origins, prior to a merger under the leadership of John Lathrop. One group was initially led by Henry Jacob, out of Robinson's Independents. The other group was led by John Lathrop, formerly with Helwys' General Baptist congregation, out of John Smyth's Separatists.

Torbet agrees with Underwood that Jacob was an Independent who left Robinson and returned to England in 1616.

He gives the line of succession this way.

The Particular Baptist were first recognizable as a separate group, with their own doctrine and practice, in 1638. They were first Independent Puritan Calvinists led by Henry Jacob. The church was aptly called Jacob Church. In 1622 Jacob moved to Virginia, where he died in 1624. After Henry Jacob, John Lathrop was pastor until his imprisonment in 1632. After his release from prison, he and about thirty members of his congregation fled to New England. The group which remained in England were led by two pastors. Cromwell's humorously named parliamentarian "Praise-God" Barebone led half the church which met in his house, Lock and Key, on Fleet Street. Henry Jessey cared for the other half. At this point, both Jessey and Barebone were still Puritan pedobaptists. In time Jessey came to accept believer's baptism and was baptized by Hansard Knollys who at the time was an Independent in sentiment, believing in baptism by immersion, but still a bishop with the Church of England.

 

To me, calvinism is the false belief that everyone's "fate" is pre=determinedthat no one can change it. If that were true, why preach or witness? Why have Bibles or churches ?

 

The only "baptism" that matters is our spiritual baptism into Christ. This is Christianity 101
This truth has been explained to every person seeking water baptism in every Baptist Church I regularly attended, a total of three.

 

Because God Ordained the means and instrumentality of using the preaching of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit's Effectual CALLING, to Glorify Himself and the Accomplishment of Eternal Salvation for His Elect, by His Son?

He Commands His children to preach the Gospel.

He Commands all men to Repent and believe the Gospel.

(I actually hand people a booklet on the Eternal Security of God's Blood-bought children.

A. They may have had an experience of salvation early on in life and not know beans about the fact we can know we are saved forever ( that happened to me, when saved at 10 years old and not having ANY Bible teaching or church at all, until my early twenties/ I had the Holy Spirit as a Witness that all my sin was wrong, etc., but just had had NO Spiritual teaching/ then, when I heard it, it Made Sense REAL Quick!),

B. It opens up a Spiritual Atmosphere for the Holy Spirit to Use as He Will to see if He Appeals to a lost soul's natural desire to Not Die and Go to Hell. I let Him take the conversation where He wants, like to JESUS' Death because of sinners just like them and me/ preaching the Gospel.

 

The Spirit of God has never been said to 'baptise' anything or anyone, literally or figuratively.

This is not only an irregular teaching, but an accursed false Gospel.

No One, by The Holy Spirit, is said to be 'baptized' into Jesus Christ.

I know you won't believe it, but you have gotten these irregularities as a misinterpretation from somewhere and/ or someone.

Too bad.

 

Why indeed