ABA Churches and Baptism

I have not been the pastor of an ABA church since 1991, but I can tell you that most ABA churches that I knew about back in the day would accept Independent Baptist baptism.

While it was not true in the churches I pastored, most ABA churches considered Southern Baptist baptism to be "alien baptism."

I suspect that the younger generation ABA pastor does not have such a hard-nosed stand on this "landmark" issue. It would be interesting to hear from some of them.

For what it is worth, "pulpit affiliation" was a landmark biggie in those days, too! In this case, no preacher would be allowed to speak in an ABA church unless they were ABA.

 

Since I'm SBC, I can't help you with the ABA question. But that line caught my attention.

Back in the mid-1950s into the early 1960s, a couple of new IFB plants made some inroads into SBC churches. My own take is that these IFB churches were quite conservative, and some SBC churches were hurling headlong into liberalism.

When I first started serving my current church, I was told that we didn't grant letters to these two IFB churches, and would require anybody who sought to to move their membership from one of them to our church would be required to join "by statement." We would not accept letters from them.

I thought it curious that we wouldn't require re-baptism--we accepted their baptism--we just wouldn't accept their letters.

My church was just as conservative, but we just didn't like "sheep-stealing."

My how times changed. Now, we routinely swap letters. Attitudes have softened on both sides.

With the SBC conservative resurgence, we even had a couple of IFB churches affiliate with the SBC.

 

I can't answer for the ABC either. I was baptized in a Plymouth Brethren assembly and my baptism has never been chalenged either in England or Canada. I do not believe in baptizing again and again and again.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Authority to Baptize

By whose authority are these things done? This is a provocative question which needs a consistent, scriptural answer. The answer is partially found in the account of Jesus going to John the Baptist to be baptized. John the Baptist had divine authority("There was a man sent from God, his name was John..."

The exousia (executive power) was vested in the First Church(of Jerusalem) is referenced in Mt. 28, aka: The Great Commission re-authorizes preaching, teaching and baptizing which the disciples had already been doing during Jesus' ministry. Yes, there was an ecclesia, called out for a purpose since Jesus called the disciples from the shores of Galilee, "come follow Me, I will make you fishers of men."

Following the history of vested authority in ecclesiastical circles(no pun intended) is an interesting study. The error of universal church got the confusion going and baptismal regeneration made it worse. Many so-called churches were being populated with the unregenerated even through today, including the so-called leaders.

The authority vested in Mt. 16 was either given to Peter or to The First New Testament Church. If given to Peter, all others are apostate--the holy see has not delegated any authority except to itself. If the holy see is apostate, they are usurpers, never having had any authority. The same analogy could be made regarding who came out of Rome--unable to reform her. If Rome is a usurper, so are her daughters. They have no authority either. See the little book called: Trilemma or Death by Three Horns.

Scriptural authority is still a valid test of fellowship, especially in our ecumenical world.

Peace,
Bro. James