"Baptist" Successionism - "Amen"?

Amen from Frogman.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

AMEN From the Bible Student...

 

You have not shown from the text that it was important "who" baptized. You have simply, and rightly, demonstrated that baptism was important (becuase of the role it played in planting churches). However, the "baptizer" is not the issue in this passage. This falls short of arguing for any successionism.

 

Just exactly (and concisely) what is "successionism"? I believe Jesus taught the truth to his disciples and they in turn taught it to others and they in turn taught it to others, etc, etc, etc until today. Unbroken succession, is that what y'all mean? Or do you mean that there has always been a group of people who call themselves "Baptists" without interruption until today? Or what? I am really unfamiliar with this concept.

 

Successionism usually refers to the baptizer (person doing the baptism). Some like to think that they were baptized by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by someone ... all the way back to Christ. Therefore, there is an unbroken chain of succession with biblical baptisms. However, as Bob said, such a link cannot be proven. Moreover, such a link is never commanded or even spoken of in Scripture. It is a chasing after the wind.

 

Is this an example of Landmark doctrine?

 

Pastor Larry, Thanks for the clarification. At first I thought that there had to be an unbroken succession going back to Christ else there would have been a time when there were no practicing Christians in the world. Then it occured to me that what could be broken was INDIVIDUAL threads going back to Christ. We all have INDIVIDUAL physical threads going back to Adam. It is a physical impossibility for it to be otherwise. We could however, have broken "baptized by" threads. It is, indeed, unprovable, but, more importantly, also unnecessary.

 

Would proper baptism, in its proper mode and with its proper subject not be considered a 'truth' that would be taught by the Apostles? If it is not a part of the doctrine then what is the need for it when it has no part to play in our eternal salvation nor no part to place us in a position of identification with the church. I just simply cannot understand this, I do not wish to be on the end that everyone thinks is wrong, but I cannot see my way past these issues I have stated.

Plainly, Baptism (water) has no effect on the eternal position of any concerning salvation...(I completely believe this).

Next, it is believed and taught that believers are baptized into the church by the Spirit, if this is so, then we each would belong whereever we find ourselves and able to enjoy all the benefits of membership in whatever body we are attendance with.

Because this is not true (it cannot be if discipline is to be effective) then I can only see that believers are baptized into the Family of God by the Spirit and that water baptism identifies them with a particular local and visible body. In this way then it can be improperly administered and can even unknowingly be administered to improper subjects, but it cannot be altered as to purpose as to identify individuals with the local visible church. Apart from it there is no identification with such a local body.

But, if it is part of the truth of the doctrine we are to teach, then it too would have enjoyed a perpetual succession from the time of the Apostles.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

It would also seem to me that the succession is further proved by the doctrine of the body administering baptism.

Christ said in the commission to teach all that he commanded. Baptism is certainly a part of what he commanded. To say this is not succeeded over the centuries is then to say the teaching has fallen away.

Bro. Dallas Eaton

 

With God all things are possible! And if the church is important and it is, then the proper mode is important as well.

Richard

 

But successionism is not about "mode" (though I disagree with that terminology). Successionism is about who performs the baptism, not about how it was performed.

BTW, I disagree with the terminology "mode" because it is misused. As Hiscox said, "mode" of baptism relates to cold water/hot water/running water/still water/etc. Sprinkling or pouring is not a "mode" of baptism. It is not baptism at all. I think we need to strike that from our vocabulary.

 

Rev. Sincere was "baptized" (sprinkled) by Rev. Ignorant who thought sprinkling was sufficient. After further study Rev Sincere discovers that immersion is better and begins to baptize his new converts by immersion yet, he himself is never immersed because he believes that sprinking isn't wrong just not as good as immersion. The future Rev A. is immersed, who in turn immerses the future Rev B and so on until I am baptized by the good Rev Q (Who is doing everything right). I do not have an unbroken succession of baptisms back to Christ. Is my baptism tainted even though for the last 100 years every baptism has been scriptural? Are you saying that EVERY line of succession is unbroken as is our physical lines of ancestry? I don't see that being taught in scripture.

 

Pastor Larry,

I agree that the uses of mode in the context I used it was not what I really meant to say, I was going to go back and change it and got busy on something else.

I do believe that the "mode" for lack of better word is important to distinguish between sprinkling or immersion. The only proper baptism is immersion.

Richard