A Concise History Of The Baptists

I did a quick scan of this link, noting a very interesting ommision of a famous document from the earliest of times, the didache, which I am sure the author of this piece had access to.

I also notice the great emphasis on total immersion for baptism. Fine, it was practiced in the very early church and the Catholic Church considers it a valid method of baptism! But if one references the didache, it will be noted that an alternative of pouring-on of the water was considered acceptable and valid, if a large enough body of water was not available, especially as must have been the case when Paul baptized the jailer and his whole household, which most probably included infants and children. Note also the baptism of Paul himself. Ananias, being stirred up by a vision from the Lord, surely did not have the Jordan River flowing outside the door when he baptized Paul!

A reference to the Eucharist was also noted, as something as being "too preoccupying" of the mind of the early Christian! How quaint! It would have been good had the author studied this Catholic belief throughly, especially from the early fathers, which is quotes from rather scarcely.

And again, I have not read this thing sufficiently to really comment on it in detail but I will conclude this with one comment that is pertinant:

Not one document, writing of the early fathers, or any other artifact was produced that indicates the presence of this early primative "Baptist Church." But if I err here, someone please correct me.

Finally, I would propose that the Lutherans, the Methodists, the JW, the SdA's, The AOG's and all of the non-Catholic Christian communities today could all take this piece, with a little alteration, and indicate that their particular congregation is the "true church" as established by Christ!

And then all I would have to do is say, prove it! Take me by the hand and show me how this piece proves this proposition.

This is an interesting spin, but this is not a proof of the so called "history of the Baptists" from the earliest of times, sorry.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


"…Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water. This prefigured baptism which saves you now…"

1 Peter 3:20-21

 

"Finally, I would propose that the Lutherans, the Methodists, the JW, the SdA's, The AOG's and all of the non-Catholic Christian communities today could all take this piece, with a little alteration, and indicate that their particular congregation is the "true church" as established by Christ!"

The SDA's and COC have essentially done just that more or less. Same sort of handwaving. Same sort of claiming every obscure heretical group as there own. Or course we know that the religious beliefs of the three groups are extremely divergent and contradictory so they can't all trace back to Christ. Of course it seems to me the most likely conclusion is that none of the do. So will the real Waldesians (who are claimed by all three) please stand up? Oh by the way Bill did you know that Peter Waldo who was around in the 12th Century started the Waldesians in the third century. Our friend John also says that the Catholic Church started in the third century. He does a fine job of refuting the idea that Constantine started the Catholic Chuch since Constantine was's around till the 4th.

Blessings

Blessings

 

Thanks, Thessalonian, for your contribution here. I think I have heard that story before, wondering what "time worm hole" he crawled through to get back to the 3rd century!

And then look ahead at the events in the 4th century?

Jules Verne had a story called the "Time Machine." Yep, that it!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

 

This is outstanding! Bill admits that EVEN in the 2nd century (when the Didach was written) Baptism by immersion was STILL held as the one and only method. Only in extreme cases where the alternative was "no baptism" were smaller amounts of water allowed.

This fits perfectly with what the Catholic Historians say about NT Baptism being for believers only.

Notice what our Catholic bretheren report in the quote below.
From Catholic Digest (Parenthesis mine in the quotes below) from the June 1999 article.
Please see www.catholicdigest.org for the full article that hints to the changes that have evolved over time.

What a pleasure to find Catholics agreeing with their own historians.

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is outstanding! Bill admits that EVEN in the 2nd century (when the Didach was written) Baptism by immersion was STILL held as the one and only method. Only in extreme cases where the alternative was "no baptism" were smaller amounts of water allowed.</font>[/QUOTE]Bob, can you read?

Put on your glasses and note what I said above. I will repeat it here for you:

...it will be noted that an alternative of pouring-on of the water was considered acceptable and valid/

Where do I say "one and only," Bob?

Bob, who were the "believers only" in NT times? At Pentecost? 10 years later? 20 years later? 50 years later? 100 years later (where the handle "catholic" first got coined as a title for this groups of "believers only")?????????

Show me one whit of a document, artifact, that indicate that these are the "Baptists" you think they are, as modern Baptists today?

Interestingly, in one sense, Catholics ARE Baptists from their belief in baptism! And in fact, I declare they just may be the "True Baptists" because they believe in the salvific nature of baptism?

Do the Baptists today believe in this, Bob?

Oops, I will have to do that after I answser this, so I may edit and comment later...

Oh, I see you quote from it, so let's see...

Interesting read, noting that while there were embellishments to the ceremony, candles, probably lots of singings, perhaps a renewal of our baptismal vows as we still do today, and even the application of holy oils, all embellishments, but the sacrament remains essentially the same.

And by the way, the Orthodox still administer the precious blood of holy Communion to an infant after baptism, a very small part of it.

Yes, but what of all this, Bob? Most of this can also be seen in the didache, which I think I will quote a portion of it here:

Paste-in here...

Didache 7:1 But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living (running) water. Didache 7:2 But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. Didache 7:3 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Didache 7:4 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before.

End of paste-in...

The dicache has been dated to as early as AD 70, Bob, which is practically on the very edge of the apostolic era! And look at the embellishments already being applied!

And please note again, the option of pouring on of the water as a valid method of baptism. There is no doubt in my mind that the very early church baptized in a stream, including dunking the head and whole body under water.

But I also note that the Jordan River is a shallow river, even in full flood stage, and all of the paintings I have seen of John the Baptist baptizing Jesus in with Jesus standing about knee deep in the river and John pouring the water over his head!

That is not proof that is the way it was done, of course, but from what I understand, total immersion in the Jordan was rather difficult to do. And again, how was Paul baptised without a huge body of water available? Or the jailer and his entire family baptized? The implications are, the apostles baptised in those cases by a pouring on, not total immersion.

And again, so long as the water flows, be it by pouring on or by total immersion, the Catholic Church considers it a valid baptism.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

Deal with the "Details" Bill.

Show how the practice of "immersion" is "the same" as what you have today EVEN though the text quoted as saying it is today "VERY DIFFERENT" from what was done by the NT church.

Show how the practice of having a 2 year trial period etc is the "SAME" as what you do today in infant Baptism. Show how the discipline practiced in that two years is the "Same" as your infant Baptism.

You seem to skip over the "details" lightly.

quote:Bob said --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a pleasure to find Catholics agreeing with their own historians.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again - Bill the Didach is NOT showing a preference for sprinkling OR for infant baptism as we have today.

Rather it shows the "opposite" - it shows that immersion is mandatory and ONLY in cases where it is impossible to immerse due to lack of water - COULD you be justified in using "less water".

That is "nothing" like the system used in America today.

And "this" is obvious to "everyone".

Nope. 120 AD is more like it. There is nothing that shows that it must be earlier than 120 AD - the very earliest one might "conjecture" is 80AD.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, do you know as much about adventism as you do about catholicism?

 

Deal with the "Details" Bill.

Show how the practice of "immersion" is "the same" as what you have today EVEN though the text quoted as saying it is today "VERY DIFFERENT" from what was done by the NT church.</font>[/QUOTE]I really don't have any idea where you want me to go, other then to say that baptism by immersion is not the way the Catholic Church baptizes today. It is for practical reasons that we baptize by pouring on of the water, the baptismal font being rather compact that way.

However, a few years ago, we did have baptism by immersion, an infant, whose whole body was immersed (the head was not immersed) in an experimental baptism the bishop allowed in one instance, a perfectly valid way to baptize.

Excuse me, but infants are baptized very soon after birth, their "catechetical studies" begin when they start going to school, mostly in preparation for first Holy Communion and Confirmation, it being encumbant on the parents to give that that "trial period" in their instruction in the faith. But for adults, it is about 3 - 4 months of RCIA, not 3 years.

When I became a Catholic, I had to start with catechetical instructions, which lasted about 4 months. And even then the priest asked me if I really and truly wanted to go through with a profession of faith and baptism, which I certainly did.

The most wonderful day of my life, Bob.

All I want to do is concentrate on what constitutes a valid baptism and so far, we have determined that a pouring of of water, while the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit" is required.

Again - Bill the Didach is NOT showing a preference for sprinkling OR for infant baptism as we have today.</font>[/QUOTE]It is showing the alternate of baptism by pouring, but if you want references from the fathers concerning the baptism of infants as well:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

I see nothing mandatory about baptism by immersion in the didache. Now, there is no doubt that it seems to be the preferred method in those days, but it is not mandatory as we see the alternative method, which the Church has now adopted as the preferable way today.

You see, Bob, you have yet to grasp the authority of the Church which can determine such things as time goes by. At one time, communion was given by the consecrated host only, whereas in earlier times, both species was given at communion. But today, both species are offered at the Mass! But that get's off the topic...

How about Europe, Rome or the rest of the Catholic world? Does water flow on the body as the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" in today's baptisms, Bob? That is what is essential, as determined by an authoritive church, which has the authoroity to "bind and loose" as given in Matthew 16:18-19!

Well, I did not have to fast as the Didache called for!

Nope. 120 AD is more like it. There is nothing that shows that it must be earlier than 120 AD - the very earliest one might "conjecture" is 80AD.</font>[/QUOTE]So what, Bob? Is it not a very ancient document that showed the thinking of the very early infant church in those tender times?

Thanks for the info, but I have seem most of it's history already.

And by the way, did you know that in the early times, some local/regional churches wanted to include the didache as part of the New Testament? But it was not included, partly because of some of the things you mentioned above. And by the way once again, some of those same local/regional churches rejected Romans, James and the Book of Revelations from the New Testament!

That is why in the latter 3rd century, local synods came together to determine the canon of scripture. Church synods of Rome, Hippo, Carthage (I think) were involved in the process, later formalized by the famous Ecumenical Council of Trent.

It takes an authoritive Church to do that, Bob!

god bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


I believe in God,
the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son,
Our Lord;
who was conceived by the holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died,
and was buried.

He descended into hell;
the third day He arose again from the dead;
He ascended into heaven,
sitteth at the right hand of God,
the Father almighty;
from thence He shall come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the holy Spirit,
the Holy Catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

- The Apostles Creed -

 

"However, a few years ago, we did have baptism by immersion, an infant, whose whole body was immersed (the head was not immersed) in an experimental baptism the bishop allowed in one instance, a perfectly valid way to baptize."

Actually I suspect the problem with the immersion and the Bishops permission is that it was an infant, right Bill. Our parish does immersion baptsm's every Easter now of adults. According to the Catechism, it is the prefered way, though for logistical reasons pouring is the most common.

Your doing a great job Bill. Bob is showing his true colors with his historic selectivism and out of contextism. I will step in where I see fit.


Blessings

 

For adults? Now I have not heard that! Do they do that within the sanctuary or at a location where there is a tank of water?

Come in anytine, Thess!

What intrigues me is his (or rather the author of whoever he quotes) selective quotes from the early fathers, when what he aught to do is read then if complete context. And the "true colors" of the early fathers, taken in that context, is obviously "catholic" in tone and doctrine, and why Protestants loath to refer to them.

There is one quote from the originally cited thesis on the history of Baptists that quotes one of these fathers (as I recall):

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?"
Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:41

"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixtey or seventy years..."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,15:6(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:167

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

(From Joe Gallego's Web Site

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

Which I gave earlier.

St. Polycarp gives his age of "eighty and six years" serving the Lord. That started at his infancy, and to be "serving the Lord" at tht tender age requires baptism!

And of course, the others mention children, who also begin their service to the Lord at their baptism.

Now, for Bob and the others who are reading this thread. Here is a very interesting diologue on infant baptism, and the salvific nature of baptism by Dave Armstrong that you will find to be an interesting read;

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ398.HTM

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

"For adults? Now I have not heard that! Do they do that within the sanctuary or at a location where there is a tank of water?
"

They have a tub they carry up and fill with water.

Good point on that Polycarp quote. Hadn't seen that before. Thanks.

Blessings

 

For adults? Now I have not heard that! Do they do that within the sanctuary or at a location where there is a tank of water?

Come in anytine, Thess!

What intrigues me is his (or rather the author of whoever he quotes) selective quotes from the early fathers, when what he aught to do is read then if complete context. And the "true colors" of the early fathers, taken in that context, is obviously "catholic" in tone and doctrine, and why Protestants loath to refer to them.

There is one quote from the originally cited thesis on the history of Baptists that quotes one of these fathers (as I recall):

"Polycarp declared, 'Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and Saviour?"
Polycarp,Martyrdom of Polycarp,9(A.D. 156),in ANF,I:41

"And many,both men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure and at the age of sixtey or seventy years..."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,15:6(A.D. 110-165),in ANF,I:167

"For He came to save all through means of Himself--all, I say, who through Him are born again to God--infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies,2,22:4 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:391

(From Joe Gallego's Web Site

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/infant.htm

Which I gave earlier.

St. Polycarp gives his age of "eighty and six years" serving the Lord. That started at his infancy, and to be "serving the Lord" at tht tender age requires baptism!

And of course, the others mention children, who also begin their service to the Lord at their baptism.

Now, for Bob and the others who are reading this thread. Here is a very interesting diologue on infant baptism, and the salvific nature of baptism by Dave Armstrong that you will find to be an interesting read;

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ398.HTM

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon. </font>[/QUOTE]What you have stated about the salvific power of baptism sounds much like the Church of Christ.

Acts 17:11, “1 Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily [to see] whether these things were so.”

It’s not about what an RCC theologian writes but about what the Bible in light of its historical context teaches. Heretics writes books too. Would you believe them too? So my point is that one has to dig a little deeper than what someone writes in a book before calling it fact.

Many of those churches that once sprinkled are now immersing. Why?

If being baptized means you are saved then how would you deal with the thief on the cross hanging next to Jesus? He was never baptized. Paul states that he did not come to baptize but to preach the gospel. Before I was baptized I had preached in the free speech platform at the university I attended. I wrote editorials in response to some articles in the school newspaper.

Sometime ask a person form Korea or Japan about how they would explain the passage in Acts about the household being saved. You cannot interpret that passage in light of American culture but in light of its historical context.

The Bible states that you will know them by their fruit. If a person is saved they will show that fruit. I have known RCC priests who have stated privately that they were not saved until later after becoming a priest. I have known others in other denominations as well. .

Growing up in the Roman Catholic Church I did not know what it meant to be saved. They never talked about that in all the years I went to catechism. My mother never knew. She knows now from my sharing with her. The first time I talked with her about it she did not know what being saved meant. She even went to Catholic school. My sister never knew until I first shared with her. My mom and dad was married in the Catholic Church and he is still not a believer today.

Ever read the treatise by Tertullian on baptism?


"FROM THE TIME OF CHRIST THEIR FOUNDER TO THE 18TH CENTURY" is pure nonsense. When I took Baptist history the profesor who at one time was the historian for the SBC said that to endorse that kind of nonsense would have meant that you would have had to claim some heretics too. Baptists have only ben around for about four hundred years. There were some Baptists who tried in reaction to the RCC to give the impressuion of apostolic succession. It just didn't happen.

[ January 29, 2004, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: gb93433 ]

 

Er, ah,...................OK

The only "Church of Christ" that comes to my mind is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Headquarters, Vatican City, Rome.

I put no trust an a "RCC theologian," but I do put my trust in the teaching magisterium of the Church. Big difference.

I don't know and I don't give a hoot, since in my Church, so long as the water flows on the body while the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" are recited, we have a valid baptism.

(Pulling myself off the floor, having explained this perhaps a million times now.)

And neither were the Holy Innocents who Herod had slaughtered, nor the many, many catachumens who were martyred before they were baptized either. Or how about the convert-to-be who is under instruction, but is suddenly killed in an automobile accident?

The Church has long ago pronounced that for such who came to believe in Christ, to be saved in Christ, but who could not be baptized are still baptised in what is called a "Baptism of Desire." And as for the martyrs, a "Baptism of Blood."

See how easy that was?

Did you ever notice that Paul did indeed, baptize? Even so, what was the main thrust of his mission? To preach, of course! And as it probably was with the other apostles, baptism of the new converts were most probably done by others. My bishop here in Pensacola, seldom baptizes, because he has priests in the various parishes in his diocese that does this. In fact, it is often done by the deacon, rather then a the pastor, depending upon the work load.

Paul is not subordinating the need for baptism here, but rather the thrust of his mission, to preach the Word of God. And while he certainly baptized, it was mostly handled by others in his company.

As for your work in college, good for you!

And even befoe I was baptized, I defended the Faith I was about to enter but a whole bunch of "Youth for Christ" people (Billy Graham organization years ago) tried to talk me out of it! And that is how I got the feel for apologetics, so many years ago...

I am a believer in historical context, especially when a jailer is baptized, along with his whole household, contemplating the age of the youngest child, including any slaves they also had who were also baptized. And where was the big vat of water Paul and company used to baptize them in, hummmmmmmmmmm?

Pardon my skepticism of your statement that a priest would declare such a thing. For me, that flies in the face of a discernment of a vocation to Holy Orders that takes far more then just being saved; it takes far more, including a genuine calling.

Did you ever get taught about sin? Jesus? His Sacraments, including not only the Eucharist, but of the Sacrament of Reconsiliation, (Confessions to a priest) per the power given to him in John 20:22-23?

Did you ever attend a Catholic School? And did your parents teach you about the Faith, show their love for God, Jesus and His Church, sir?

Again, pardon my great skepticism of your testimony here. I find it impossible to believe that a knowledgable and practicing Catholic would not find contentment in his "continuing to be saved" by the constant fight against sin, a temptation to sin, and a constant application of the Faith in the Sacraments.

Let me tell you something, sir.

I have seven adult children, all who have gone through Catholic schools, and who continue to practice their Faith with fervor! My wife and I took pains to teach them to Love God, Jesus and his Divine Word, including the Church He founded!

As for your testimony here, I can only wonder....

Yes, probably, why?

Whew! You rapidly changed the subject here! But yes, notihing here that I could disagree with you.

I certainly agree that the Baptist claim to some succession back to the apostles, as we see attempted in the lead-off message in this thread, is a construct from whole cloth!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Rome has spoken, case is closed.

Derived from Augustine's famous Sermon.

 

Hello all! Its been a long time since I've joined a discussion; mind if I enter the fray?
Kevin

 

Hi Cotton!

You got the floor!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

In the Concise History of the Baptists; am I reading this correctly that the author believes that John the baptist "invented" (probably not the word I'm looking for) baptism?
Kevin

 

Not looking back to see if that was in the original paper, I can at least tell you that I have heard that claim before.

It goes this way: We call ourselves Baptists, therefore we go back to John the Baptist, the first "Baptist."

But one correction: The word "baptism" could not have been "invented" by St. John the Baptist, since it means to wash, cleanse, immerse, etc., and that has already been a practice, even for ritual purposes before. Therefore, the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek word equivalant for "baptism" was used before John put it to a singular use.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

Bob Ryan,

Brother, in all honestly, WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO KID HERE?

You thrash endlessly, wasting energy on HOW a person is to be baptized, when you believe in your heart that it is only a SYMBOL. If you are right, then why do you care HOW?

The real issue Bob, is what the Church that was handed down from the Apostles has stated Baptism is: REAL. Not just a symbol.

I CONTEND:

1. If BobRyan is correct, and it is only a symbol, then the method used to get a person wet is meaningless, as only the symbolic reference is neccessary. The REAL meaning and significance is in your MIND.

2. If the Church that Peter founded at Rome is correct, and Babtism is a Sacrament, and a spiritual reality, then the method used to get a person wet is secondary. What is key, is the spiritual reality occuring by the Holy Spirit.

An example that Baptists use that would easily compare to the RCC is this: The sinners prayer, the altar call, the saving of a person. Does it happen at the alter, in a closet, in a river, are there set words, what order do they say the words in, etc, etc. No, when the Baptists believe that this act is of a recapitulatory nature, then all that matters is that the person mean the prayer, and say it. They trust Jesus to come into the persons heart, and the Holy Spirit to indwell them, and make them a new creature.

I don't understand your extreem focus on this particular point Bob.

 

Yes, that is very odd! Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be anywhere near this fastidiousness regarding the other Baptist ordinance, the Lord's Supper. Why is that?