Baptism, Prerequisite to Communion?

Michael,

Later General Baptists did follow Quakerism and Unitarianism to the point that General Baptist Movement became little more than a novelty by the 1700's.

The Arminianism of the Generals made them suceptable to Ouaker heresy. The General Baptist Confession of 1654 The True Gospel-Faith Declared According to the Scriptures, 1654 was written by the General Baptists againist Quakerism and can be found at http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/tgf.htm

 

Bro Wells,

you asked,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>When is the person saved? When they "confess" to God, or when they "confess" to men? Or, as it sounds like you are proposing, after they have done both?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, brother I promise you I am not a closet Cambellite for one is born again by the Holy Spirit and not by water (or Prayer as you seem to imply). A person is saved the moment they believe by faith in Jesus Christ. However, if a person is truly saved (and after have been properly instructed) they will profess that faith before men which is Biblicaly done by Baptism. Your Baptism is your profession that you have been converted. A person who tells me they are saved yet say they don't need Baptism I do not view as a Christian. If a person cannot follow Christ into the waters of Baptism they certaintly will not follow him anywhere else. Without Baptism a person has no right to call themself a follower of Christ.

The Apostle Paul makes it clear that this is our uniform when he wrote,

"Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life."

Romans 6:4

and the Apostle Peter stated,
and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also--not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)

The Anabaptist Leonhard Schiemer was right when he said,"Water baptism is the seal of our faith and of the covenant we make in our hearts to God."

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Correct. They have not been baptized Biblically. Immersion is the only Biblical method of baptism. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bro Tom:

I've got to disagree with you. Believer's baptism is the only biblical method of baptism, but there is no clearly prescribed means of baptism. I agree that it makes most sense, symbolically, logically and linguistically, but it is the act which is important, not the means. Your position would also eliminate the early Baptists from proper baptism as they did not immerse!

And what do we do with baptism of people where there is not deep enough water to be immersed in? Some areas, people stand in shin-deep water and have a bucket poured over their heads - is this not true baptism?

What of the invalid or infirmed who cannot be dipped? I think we must grant some grace in baptismal modes - immersion preferred - unless we become legalists.

 

Chris,
Believers are the only proper subjects for baptism. But immersion is the only mode of baptism which fulfills NT teaching. Baptizo and the related terms clearly mean to dip or immerse. As for people you mention, there are many ways to immerse them. Many churches have gadgets in place where they can immerse a person gently,harmlessly and safely. I have found that hospitals are equipped with such as well and will usually be glad to help in such a circumstance. We must remember that cultural difficulties are not the determining factor; Biblical fidelity is. I'm well aware that many of our Baptist fathers accepted other forms of baptism. I just happen to disagree with them. They're not infallable! Neither am I for that matter.

For an excellent treatment on this subject, see Dagg's section in "Church Order."
J.L. Dagg on Baptism

 

Whether a Quaker is a Christian or not only the Lord knows.They however are a minor kook group that at best were half baked Charismatics/Pentecostals. Their contributions to society have been largely irrelevant and followed a papacy of the believer rather than the Baptist view of Priesthood of the Believers.

Jesus commanded that all who would be his disciples to be baptized (Mt. 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16)and those who refuse to identify with Christ are rebels.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Michael here is a link to the intro to the confession at http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/eebac.htm

that has the following text


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> There is no article on the Scriptures, though the leaders in 1654 did not overlook this omission. In their introductory letter they said:

We therefore do desire that whosoever read it [the Confession] may weigh the Scriptures produced; and if it be according to the Scriptures, there is light in it; for its the Scriptures of the Prophets and Apostles that we square our faith and practice by, accounting that light within (not witnessed by the Scriptures without) which some much talk of to be deep darkness...Let the Scripture therefore be the rule of thy faith and practice...

The Confession always uses "dipped" for baptized. It also is the first Baptist Confession to prescribe the laying on of hands for all baptized believers. This practice appears to have been but lately brought to the attention of Baptists, and John Griffith was a leading exponent of it. It was not yet commonly used among General Baptists.

The Quakers took prompt notice of the stiffening opposition of the Baptists of whom Griffith was leader. In 1654 Edward Burrough answered Griffith's A Voice from the Word of the Lord, and in 1655 Richard Farnsworth published a critical answer to the Confession of 16543. Perhaps the Confession steadied all London General Baptists, after making them aware of the serious danger in which they stood, for it does reflect a certain stability and maturity of thought which characterized the churches represented by it. It also gives the best picture of the reaction of Baptists to the first serious effort of the Quakers to win London.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Chris,
Believers are the only proper subjects for baptism. But immersion is the only mode of baptism which fulfills NT teaching. Baptizo and the related terms clearly mean to dip or immerse. As for people you mention, there are many ways to immerse them. Many churches have gadgets in place where they can immerse a person gently,harmlessly and safely. I have found that hospitals are equipped with such as well and will usually be glad to help in such a circumstance. We must remember that cultural difficulties are not the determining factor; Biblical fidelity is. I'm well aware that many of our Baptist fathers accepted other forms of baptism. I just happen to disagree with them. They're not infallable! Neither am I for that matter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nor I! And I guess that is my point - though I believe immersion to be the NT model, there is enough divergent opinion for me to realize I may be wrong. Afterall, if we are willing to accept regenerate paedobaptists as true Christians - which I am - who differ from us in their interpretation of the very purpose and nature of baptism, (which is even more explicit in Scripture than is the mode), then I am willing to allow for some divergent opinion and practice of mode, which is not as clear. I've read well argued articles why baptizo does not mean immerse as well as the baptist articles as why it does

 

Michael said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Irrelevant? Abolition of slavery; support of peace; equality of women; humane treatment of Native Americans, prisoners, and the insane--these and other Quaker principles are much more relevant and closer to the teachings of Christ than the legalisms of certain Christians who resemble the Pharisees more than they resemble Christ.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what....You will find some of the same principles among the Hippy dopeheaded flower children of the 60's, and Jehovah Witnesses, Hindus, Buddhists, Unitarians (many of whom followed that Quaker inner light) ...Are they Christians? but all that proves they believed in peace and were nice people.

They were not responsible for ending slavery though they may have helped produced Abolitionist Psychopaths like Jim Brown. Slavery was not ended by Abolitionists but by Lincoln whose goal was primarily to keep the Union together and not end slavery (The Emancipation of Proclamation was a political ploy)....but that's another story


PS. By the way all that PRIESTHOOD OF THE BELIEVER or BELIEVERS mean is that we all have direct and equal access to God and not that everyone is his on bishop or pope.

[ January 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kiffin ]

 

Chris wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I've read well argued articles why baptizo does not mean immerse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I 'd be interested in seeing such. Any links?

 

Michael,

You are correct it is "John" My goof!

I don't want to change the topic for this thread and I fear I have strayed off topic. I don't view the Quakers as orthodox nor did the early Baptists. The point I am trying to make is that Quaker theology is no more Baptist than Lutheran, Presbyterian. I have not quoted the Augsburg Confession or Westminister on Baptism because like Quakerism they are not part of the Baptist heritage. If we are going to be Baptists we should follow Christ commands in Mark 16:15-16, Mt. 28:18-20 and also glean from the wisdom of our Anabaptist and Baptist ancestors.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TomVols:
Chris wrote:


I 'd be interested in seeing such. Any links?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom:

It's been awhile - let me see if I can turn them up.