Does Baptism have to be by immersion?

[Michael Wrenn]

No! That is obedience to scriptures!




You fail to understand both the concept and purpose of a symbol. The concept of a symbol is an established PATTERN/FORM/SHADOW whose sole purpose is to visibly convey a certain truth. If the administration veers from the established pattern the intended truth is PERVERTED and denied visible manifestation.

Water baptism is by design to publicly identify the believer with the truth of the gospel or the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are explicitly said to be "buried" by baptism and any other mode PERVERTS that truth and thus perverts the gospel of Jesus Christ. In addition, any other mode (sprinkling, pouring) repudiates the Holy Spirits choice of "baptizo" and arbritrarily makes it synonymous with epicheo and rantizo which are NEVER used for the Christian ordinance.

On the contrary, I perfectly understand both the purpose and concept of a symbol. But I refuse to make such a symbol into a legalistic requirement for which an exception never dare be made under any circumstances.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You must be new to Baptist Circles. Let me help you out. Baptist is only by immersion is a baptist distinctive.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You should study Baptist history. The first Baptists didn't immerse.

 

[The Biblicist]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You should study Baptist history. The first Baptists didn't immerse.

I have studied the history of Anabaptists very well and the only proof you have is individuals who were in transition from Catholicism to Anabaptism. The Moravian chronicle is a paedobpatist invention. The whole 1641 theory in England is a complete hoax that has been totally disproven by John T. Christian and others.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I have studied the history of Anabaptists very well and the only proof you have is individuals who were in transition from Catholicism to Anabaptism. The Moravian chronicle is a paedobpatist invention. The whole 1641 theory in England is a complete hoax that has been totally disproven by John T. Christian and others.

Although I wasn't addressing you, I don't mind that you responded to me.

The first English Baptists were General Baptists; they were influenced by Mennonites.

It is a fact that the first English Baptists did not immerse.

Now to clarify my personal views: I believe that immersion was the original NT form of baptism, undergone by Jesus and practiced by the apostles. I believe it most perfectly pictures the Gospel. I would only baptize by immersion -- unless this was not possible. However, in cases where it was not possible, I would baptize by other means. And if I was the pastor of a church, and someone came requesting membership who had received believer's baptism by a mode other than immersion, I would leave it to the conscience of the individual whether to be immersed or not.

 

[Revmitchell]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

You should study Baptist history. The first Baptists didn't immerse.

 

[Tom Butler]

In I Corinthians 11:2, Paul admonishes the congregation at Corinth to "guard the ordinances."

The ordinances, of course, are baptism and the Lord's Supper. He will proceed to discuss later in Chapter 11 the abuses of the Lord's Supper and provide correction.

It would be seem obvious to me that the churches must guard the integrity of baptism as well as the Lord's Supper. That would involve the Biblical mode, immersion.

It would also involve the subject--a believer.

And it would also involve the meaning--to picture the gospel.

And finally, it would involve the administrator--a New Testament Church.

It's important to get it right. A few hundred years ago, Baptists thought it was important enough to die for.

 

[The Biblicist]

It is a fact that the first English Baptists did not immerse.
.

That is simply not historically true! The 1641 theory has been repudiated many times over. John T. Christian exposed that historical fallacy in the early 1920's. There is overwhelming historical testimony that immersion was the mode of Baptists in England as early as 1550. You need to stop reading paedobaptist second hand gossip and look at other historians that provide actual documentation.

I spent approximately one year in the basement of the University of Tennesseee in the microfilm library examing photo copies of the Bodlean Library. One of my Seminary Professors made the same statement you have and after six months of researching the Bodlean Library I placed a stack of original source materials on his desk that prove that Baptists immersed their converts from 1550 all the way up to 1641 and I never heard a peep out of him since.

Anyone who has done serious research on John Symthe and the General Baptists knows that you cannot prove that the church ultimately constituted was not by immersed members. Those who attempt to prove they did not immerse or began by se-baptism quote hostile and second hand sources rather than first hand sources or their own testimony.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

In I Corinthians 11:2, Paul admonishes the congregation at Corinth to "guard the ordinances."

The ordinances, of course, are baptism and the Lord's Supper. He will proceed to discuss later in Chapter 11 the abuses of the Lord's Supper and provide correction.

It would be seem obvious to me that the churches must guard the integrity of baptism as well as the Lord's Supper. That would involve the Biblical mode, immersion.

It would also involve the subject--a believer.

And it would also involve the meaning--to picture the gospel.

And finally, it would involve the administrator--a New Testament Church.

It's important to get it right. A few hundred years ago, Baptists thought it was important enough to die for.

They died for believer's baptism, not for immersion.

 

[The Biblicist]

On the contrary, I perfectly understand both the purpose and concept of a symbol. But I refuse to make such a symbol into a legalistic requirement for which an exception never dare be made under any circumstances.

One question! Who gave you the right to make the purpose and concept of the symbol of baptism optional? Why don't you just change the Lord's Supper symbols while your at it too!

You cannot change the scriptures and the scriptures have defined the form and purpose of Baptism in many ways.

1. By the singular choice of term out of other available terms (which are never used for that ordinance].

2. By the consistent historical meaning of that term

3. By the declaration twice that we are "buried" with Him by baptism (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12).


You have NOTHING in Scripture to base your optional theology upon. Your only refuge for OPTION is uninspired traditions of men and that OPTION provides every heresy imaginable as well. So what you call "legalism" is the Biblical data that offer absolutely NPTIONS but immersion. Your OPTION is simply disobedience to God's Word.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That is simply not historically true! The 1641 theory has been repudiated many times over. John T. Christian exposed that historical fallacy in the early 1920's. There is overwhelming historical testimony that immersion was the mode of Baptists in England as early as 1550. You need to stop reading paedobaptist second hand gossip and look at other historians that provide actual documentation.

I spent approximately one year in the basement of the University of Tennesseee in the microfilm library examing photo copies of the Bodlean Library. One of my Seminary Professors made the same statement you have and after six months of researching the Bodlean Library I placed a stack of original source materials on his desk that prove that Baptists immersed their converts from 1550 all the way up to 1641 and I never heard a peep out of him since.

Anyone who has done serious research on John Symthe and the General Baptists knows that you cannot prove that the church ultimately constituted was not by immersed members. Those who attempt to prove they did not immerse or began by se-baptism quote hostile and second hand sources rather than first hand sources or their own testimony.

What I said is factual; what you said is not.

I didn't get the facts from any paedobaptist source.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I said is factual; what you said is not.

I didn't get the facts from any paedobaptist source.

What you said is certainly not factual and I have done my homework very well and I know you don't know what you are talking about. The 1641 theory has been debunked many many times and I can debunk it again if you want to challenge who really knows their history???

The 1641 theory was based upon the faulty logic that since there was all of a sudden a great deluge of printed materials defending immersion from 1641 forward that it was assumed that Baptists did not immerse prior to 1641. However, further investigation discovered that it was illegal in England for dissenters to print their beliefs prior to 1640 but the law was changed in 1641. The legalization was taken advantage by the Baptists and they flooded the printing presses with literature defending immersion from 1641 onward. However, there is abundant source materials prior to 1641 to show that Baptists were present and immersing in England all the way back to 1550 and testimony of earlier presence of Baptists and immersion as far back as 1350. Have you ever read the book "The Church in the Hop Garden" by Stanely??? This is the history of one of the oldest Baptist churches in England that uses archeological evidences (baptistries, grave stones, etc.) to prove its case.

BTW neither Smyth's church or Spilsbury's church were the first Baptist churches in England.

 

[The Biblicist]

What you said is certainly not factual and I have done my homework very well and I know you don't know what you are talking about. The 1641 theory has been debunked many many times and I can debunk it again if you want to challenge who really knows their history???

The 1641 theory was based upon the faulty logic that since there was all of a sudden a great deluge of printed materials defending immersion from 1641 forward that it was assumed that Baptists did not immerse prior to 1641. However, further investigation discovered that it was illegal in England for dissenters to print their beliefs prior to 1640 but the law was changed in 1641. The legalization was taken advantage by the Baptists and they flooded the printing presses with literature defending immersion from 1641 onward. However, there is abundant source materials prior to 1641 to show that Baptists were present and immersing in England all the way back to 1550 and testimony of earlier presence of Baptists and immersion as far back as 1350. Have you ever read the book "The Church in the Hop Garden" by Stanely??? This is the history of one of the oldest Baptist churches in England that uses archeological evidences (baptistries, grave stones, etc.) to prove its case.

BTW neither Smyth's church or Spilsbury's church were the first Baptist churches in England.

Lenoard Busher was present with John Symthe in Holland and he made it clear that immersion was the mode:

"And therefore Christ commanded his disciples to teach all nations, and baptise them; that is; to preach the word of salvation to every creature of all sorts of nations, that are worthy and willing to receive it. And such as gladly and willingly receive, he was commanded to be baptized in the water; that is, DIPPED FOR DEAD IN THE WATER." John T. Christian, Vol. 1, p. 238 citing Busher, Plea for Religious Conscience, p. 50

Those who deny this cite second hand sources and sources 70 years after the event.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lenoard Busher was present with John Symthe in Holland and he made it clear that immersion was the mode:

"And therefore Christ commanded his disciples to teach all nations, and baptise them; that is; to preach the word of salvation to every creature of all sorts of nations, that are worthy and willing to receive it. And such as gladly and willingly receive, he was commanded to be baptized in the water; that is, DIPPED FOR DEAD IN THE WATER." John T. Christian, Vol. 1, p. 238 citing Busher, Plea for Religious Conscience, p. 50

Those who deny this cite second hand sources and sources 70 years after the event.

William Kiffin writing in 1645 claimed that Spilsbury's church in London was formed out of converted pedobaptists but Spilsbury was ordained and sent by authority of a church located outside of London in the country and gives an account how Spilsbury formed the church in London. Kiffin gives this account in a tract entitled "A Moderate Answer unto Dr. Boswick's book" London 1645.

The fact is that prior to 1641 the common mode of baptism by all denominations in England was immersion. The Church of England immersed infants prior to 1641.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

What you said is certainly not factual and I have done my homework very well and I know you don't know what you are talking about. The 1641 theory has been debunked many many times and I can debunk it again if you want to challenge who really knows their history???

The 1641 theory was based upon the faulty logic that since there was all of a sudden a great deluge of printed materials defending immersion from 1641 forward that it was assumed that Baptists did not immerse prior to 1641. However, further investigation discovered that it was illegal in England for dissenters to print their beliefs prior to 1640 but the law was changed in 1641. The legalization was taken advantage by the Baptists and they flooded the printing presses with literature defending immersion from 1641 onward. However, there is abundant source materials prior to 1641 to show that Baptists were present and immersing in England all the way back to 1550 and testimony of earlier presence of Baptists and immersion as far back as 1350. Have you ever read the book "The Church in the Hop Garden" by Stanely??? This is the history of one of the oldest Baptist churches in England that uses archeological evidences (baptistries, grave stones, etc.) to prove its case.

BTW neither Smyth's church or Spilsbury's church were the first Baptist churches in England.

What I said is factual, and I do know what I am talking about.

Landmarkism is not credible in any way; it has been discredited and proven non-factual. It is as silly, foolish, and false as the Catholic contention that an unbroken line of monarchical bishops can be traced back to the apostles. So, quote Landmark sources all you want; the position is not credible and not true. You'll never get the truth about this by reading John T. Christian.

If you want to know the truth, Leon McBeth is a good source. Here is an online link to the Baptist History and Heritage Society: http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Considering how paedobaptists have wanted to cut Baptists off from the apostolic church and have labored to do so in the past, and continue to do so today, as evidenced by our recent bombardment by our Lutheran guest, I can understand the Landmarkers and their promotion of Baptist successionism. However, Landmarkism is simply untrue historically.

I believe that the NT churches had many baptistic practices, principles and beliefs, and I believe there were individuals and groups down through the centuries who held to many of these principles, but the Landmark version is as much folklore as the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession.

I think it is sufficient to believe as I state on the CAC website: "My spiritual ancestors also include the Anabaptists, Quakers, Baptists, and their spiritual kin from the most ancient churches all down through the centuries who were almost persecuted out of existence by Catholics and Magisterial Protestants. They are martyrs and heroes of the faith, and I proudly include them in my lines of apostolic succession -- true apostolic succession being an adherence to the apostolic faith as taught by Jesus Christ and the apostles and found in sacred scripture."

And I say this while not buying into the Landmark fable.

 

[saturneptune]

The issue is guided by two simple rules. Immersion is the Biblical model. Each church is autonomous and can decide the issue for themselves.

It really does not matter what any individual thinks about the matter, but the local church. If one does not like the way the local church baptizes, there is one that they will agree with down the road.

 

[saturneptune]

Considering how paedobaptists have wanted to cut Baptists off from the apostolic church and have labored to do so in the past, and continue to do so today, as evidenced by our recent bombardment by our Lutheran guest, I can understand the Landmarkers and their promotion of Baptist successionism. However, Landmarkism is simply untrue historically.

I believe that the NT churches had many baptistic practices, principles and beliefs, and I believe there were individuals and groups down through the centuries who held to many of these principles, but the Landmark version is as much folklore as the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession.

I think it is sufficient to believe as I state on the CAC website: "My spiritual ancestors also include the Anabaptists, Quakers, Baptists, and their spiritual kin from the most ancient churches all down through the centuries who were almost persecuted out of existence by Catholics and Magisterial Protestants. They are martyrs and heroes of the faith, and I proudly include them in my lines of apostolic succession -- true apostolic succession being an adherence to the apostolic faith as taught by Jesus Christ and the apostles and found in sacred scripture."

And I say this while not buying into the Landmark fable.

That last statement is so true. It is as ridiculous as the Catholic fable of going back to Peter. Even if one or both were true, the whole mindset of that being important raises a red flag about what is important about the Gospel. I believe in several places in Paul's letters, it is either stated or implied that being physically related to Abraham is basically worthless, but it is being born again spiritually that is the true child of Abraham or the promise. Basically worrying about where the church originated is the same shallow, worldly thinking.

 

[The Biblicist]

What I said is factual, and I do know what I am talking about.

Landmarkism is not credible in any way; it has been discredited and proven non-factual. It is as silly, foolish, and false as the Catholic contention that an unbroken line of monarchical bishops can be traced back to the apostles. So, quote Landmark sources all you want; the position is not credible and not true. You'll never get the truth about this by reading John T. Christian.

If you want to know the truth, Leon McBeth is a good source. Here is an online link to the Baptist History and Heritage Society: http://www.baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

I quoted primary source materials! Your position cannot be defended by primary source materials but by secondary hostile source materials.

You are now maneuvering the topic from historical evidence to a ecclesiastical view - "Landmarkism" when I have not even mentioned that term. You are running from the historical evidences and I can marshall primary source materials to prove you simply do not know what you are talking about. Go ahead and challenge me. I will be glad to present the primary source materials (some I have already presented) that disproves your false theories.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I quoted primary source materials! Your position cannot be defended by primary source materials but by secondary hostile source materials.

You are now maneuvering the topic from historical evidence to a ecclesiastical view - "Landmarkism" when I have not even mentioned that term. You are running from the historical evidences and I can marshall primary source materials to prove you simply do not know what you are talking about. Go ahead and challenge me. I will be glad to present the primary source materials (some I have already presented) that disproves your false theories.

As usual, the truth and you need to get acquainted.

You may not have mentioned "Landmarkism", but you have presented as your primary source John T. Christian, major proponent of Baptist successionism, otherwise known as Landmarkism. When you did that that, you lost the argument then and there, and along with it, credibility. Thus, it is you and not I who is presenting falsehood. So, go ahead and present whatever else you want because it will not matter at all; by appealing to John T. Christian and Landmarkism, you have gutted your own argument. Thank you very much for doing that. You made it easy for me.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

That last statement is so true. It is as ridiculous as the Catholic fable of going back to Peter. Even if one or both were true, the whole mindset of that being important raises a red flag about what is important about the Gospel. I believe in several places in Paul's letters, it is either stated or implied that being physically related to Abraham is basically worthless, but it is being born again spiritually that is the true child of Abraham or the promise. Basically worrying about where the church originated is the same shallow, worldly thinking.

Quite so -- excellent!

Thank you!