Featured Recognizing irregular church doctrines.

Such as what…please Give examples thank you

 

Presbyterian/Methodist/Anglican/Lutheran yada yada perhaps

 

These are sacramental churches…as is the Catholic theology.

when I was a boy there was a strong resemblance to an exorcism to the RC baptism service…that came flooding back to me when I got cross examined by three Presbyterian ministers why I hadn’t Baptized my dead son right after birth (that would be to wash away the babies sins and initiate him to reformed theology). Something quite different from Baptist Adult Believer's Baptism.

 

I have known Tom Ross for many years, the author of the book/ pamphlet, below. I went to his Ordination. My current pastor sat under him for years.

He is a BAPTIST in all capitol letters.

His treatment of Alien Baptism is Sound, Sane, and Scriptural.

If more 'Baptists' knew what it was to be Baptist, their church bodies could be more protected and likely to be more populated with the Regenerated.

Who knows what others have been feed as the Way of Salvation.

We generally do know what 'Presbyterian/Methodist/Anglican/Luthe' consider 'salvation' and it is not good.

Baptisms should only be received from "like faith and order" Congregations.

Reference: Resetting an Old Landmark

Resetting an Old Landmark
by Tom Ross

"Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set" (Prov. 22:28).

"One Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Eph. 4:5).

 

Speaking of 'irregularities', as in the O.P., this article has more information on Alien Baptism: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/justice.alien.baptism.html
Should a Baptist Church Recognize Alien Baptism?
By Laurence Justice.

Laurence Justice is an eleventh-generation BAPTIST.

Excerpt: "Baptist churches do not recognize alien baptism because to do so would involve some very serious irregularities for our churches. One is that recognizing alien baptism places the authority of men above the authority of the written word and this is always wrong. As Peter says in another context, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”

"A second irregularity that recognizing alien baptism involves is that it places tradition above the written word of God. Allowing an unbaptized man to come into the church because he finds it impossible to forsake the traditions of his fathers is placing tradition above the scriptures. What the Lord Jesus said to the scribes and Pharisees in Mark 7:9 certainly applies to those who hold to the traditions of other churches rather than submitting to scriptural Baptist baptism. “. . . Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.”

"Recognizing alien baptism places the conscience of the individual above the written word of God. When we allow people to come into the church without scriptural baptism because their consciences tell them that their alien baptisms are enough then we place conscience above scripture.

"I know a Baptist pastor in the state of Alabama who has a Methodist baptism. When I asked him about it, he said that he was satisfied with that baptism and thus had never submitted to scriptural Baptist baptism.

"Most denominations will tell you that the type of baptism which one has doesn’t make any difference just so a person feels right about his own.

"But baptism’s validity is not determined by whether the subject is satisfied with it. The question is this; is the Lord satisfied with that baptism?

"Does that baptism square with the scriptures?

"These are three irregularities that recognizing alien baptism brings into our churches. And of course, irregularities relating to baptism will soon lead to other irregularities in our churches.

"A third reason Baptists don’t recognize alien baptism is that to do so would be to deny the very meaning of the name Baptist. Our name was originally Anabaptist and meant literally rebaptizers. Through the years the prefix Ana was dropped as a matter of convenience and we are now called simply Baptists.

"Historically Baptists were called Anabaptists or rebaptizers because we do not believe that members of other denominations have been scripturally baptized and so when they join our churches we require them to be scripturally baptized.

"The name Baptist is a distinguishing name. It differentiates all who hold it from all other denominations. It marks the peculiarities of the people who wear it.

"The name Baptist distinguishes those who baptize saved people from those who do not. It distinguishes those who are baptized Christians from those who are not.

"Most Protestants today treat baptism as nonessential and as more or less insignificant. Brother that’s not the way Baptists see baptism as our very name indicates. For a Baptist church to recognize alien baptism is unbaptistic.

"Actually a church that does so ceases to be a Baptist church in any biblical and historical sense," etc., etc.

 

Another 'church irregularity' would be 'Open Communion'.

The Lord's New Testament model and pattern
is for churches to practice Close Communion.

THE LORD'S SUPPER - CLOSE COMMUNION
I CORINTHIANS 10:16-21 AND 11:17-22
By Berlin Hisel, 1981 Introduction:

I. This Age Is Characterized By the Neglect of the "Local Church."

A. Open Communion Is Another Way
the Truth of the Local Church Is Neglected.

B. The Proper Observance of the Lord's Supper
Emphasizes the Importance of the "Local Church."

C. Baptists Are Recipients of Much Abuse
and Unjust Criticism Because of the Practice of "Close Communion."

II. "Close Communion" Is Not Out of Line of Good Thinking.

A. Every Church Teaches "Close Communion" of Some Sort.

1. Baptism Or Sprinkling Is Required By All Kinds of Churches
Before the Right To the Lord's Supper Is Given.

2. All Draw a Line Somewhere,
So We Should Draw the Line In the Right Place,

B. Baptists Expect Everyone That Partakes With Us
To Submit To the Same Things We Do.

1. Suppose a Coach Gave a Supper For His Basketball Players.
I Heard of It and Went. They Would Say To Me, "You Can't Eat Here".
Then I Would Cry, "Unfair - Bigots".
They Would Tell Me, "You Go Try Out, and If You Make the Team
You Can Come Next Year".
Would I Be Justified To Say They Didn't Love Me, Etc.?
Of Course Not.

2. Take Another Example: A Lodge Has Their Initiation Service,
I Go To It and I Can't Get In.
Why? I Must Submit To the Same Rules and Rituals They Do
and Then I Can Participate.
Are They Too Good For Me?
No, For They Associate With Me In Other Things.
Do I Have a Right To Call Them Narrow, Bigots,
and Unkind Because of This? NO.

3. These Things that One may Reason As Just,
But When It Comes To Religion, Men Don't Reason,
They Just Cry, "Foul Play".

A SCRIPTURAL OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER

I. SCRIPTURAL BAPTISM IS ESSENTIAL
TO A PROPER OBSERVANCE OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

A. Note Some Scriptures That Show This To Be True.

1. Acts 2:41-42 - "They" refers to the baptized in verse 41.

2. Acts 20:7 - the distinguishing mark of "disciples" was baptism.

3. The order is: "believe" - "baptism" - "communion."

B. Baptist Baptism Is Different From All Other Baptisms.

1. There must be a. proper candidate - saved person (Acts 2:47).

2. There must be a proper mode - immersion.

a. Romans 6:1-4 (burial).

b. Matthew 3:6 - "In" Jordan, not "by" Jordan or "with" Jordan.

c. "In" water, not "with" or "by" water.

d. They handled the "person" and not the "water."

3. There must be a proper administrator = A New Testament church
of Like Faith and Order. (Matthew 28:18-20).

C. One Might Say There Is Really a "Close" Baptism.
A scriptural observance of the Lord's Supper
requires a scriptural observance of baptism.

II. SCRIPTURAL DISCIPLINE OF CHURCH MEMBERS
IS ESSENTIAL TO A PROPER OBSERVANCE
OF THE LORD'S SUPPER.

A. The Principle of Discipline Has To Be Considered.

1. A church can only judge "those within"
(I Corinthians 5:12).

2. This would eliminate all other churches
because one church cannot judge another church's members.

B. Certain Laws Are Needed For the Benefit of the Church.

1. I Corinthians 5:9-l2 - Both man and church needed discipline.

2. Matthew 18:17 - This shows excision also.

C. Sin Destroys the Unity of the "One Body."

1. Note the "leaven" of I Corinthians 5;6-8.

2. Note the "one body" of I Corinthians 10:17.

3. Note who the "body" is in I Corinthians 12:27.

III. THERE MUST BE SCRIPTURAL UNITY IN THE CHURCH
IF THE LORD'S SUPPER IS PROPERLY OBSERVED.

A. There Is No Unity If a Church Observes the Lord's Supper
With the Heathen.

1. The Lord's churches are forbidden to eat the "Lord's Supper"
with the heathen (I Corinthians 10:16-22).

2. Those who are heretics are also forbidden in this passage.

B. There Is No Unity If We Observe the Lord's Supper
With Sects In the Church.

1. I Corinthians 11:17-20 emphasizes factions, sects, not error.

2. I Corinthians 1:11-12 shows the kind of divisions.

C. There Is No Unity If a Church Observes the Lord's Supper
With Physical Divisions.

1. I Corinthians 11:21-22 emphasizes
that they didn't wait for one another.

2. This would teach that a church can't take the Lord's Supper
in someone's home unless the church meets there.

Conclusion: The Bible says (l Corinthians 11:2),
"keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you."
(Adapted from Carl E. Sadler).

============
[From Berlin Hisel, Outlines in Systematic Theology, printed in 1981.
These outlines were used in classes at Lexington Baptist College.
Scanned and formatted by Jim Duvall.]


More on Baptists: Various Subjects
Baptist History Homepage

 

Old School and totally biblical … Well done!

 

It is a church irregularity for them to not have
A MUTUAL WATCH OVER ONE ANOTHER,
AND THE CONDUCT WE ARE DIRECTED
TO PURSUE IN CASES OF DISORDER.

That would be Church Discipline.

This is Andrew Fuller, with a sympathizing Pastor's heart.

MANY Fine thoughts: Circular, 1799, Fuller on Church Discipline

(another fine, more modern, reference: https://pastortim.com/church-discipline/)

For example: "In the exercise of discipline it is necessary to distinguish between faults which are the consequence of sudden temptation, and such as are the result of premeditation and habit. The former requires a compassionate treatment, the latter a greater portion of severity."

"A DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH OF THE GOSPEL, OR ANY OF ITS LEADING DOCTRINES, is an object of Christian discipline.

"I would they were even cut off that trouble you."

- "I have a few things against thee, because thou hast them who hold the doctrine of Balaam - so hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate."

- "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned of himself."

"In CASES OF NOTORIOUS AND COMPLICATED WICKEDNESS, it appears that in the primitive churches, *immediate exclusion was the consequence."

*Exclusion means 'put under church discipline'. They are still church members, under church discipline, i.e., not "excommunicated".

"We do not suppose, however, that every notorious fault requires immediate exclusion. The general rule given is that NOTORIOUS EVILS SHOULD MEET WITH A PUBLIC REBUKE.

"Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear," 1 Timothy v. 20

"There are also faults which do not come under the denomination of notorious sins, wherein directions are given for recovering the offenders WITHOUT ANY MENTION BEING MADE OF EXCLUSION, EITHER IMMEDIATE OR ULTIMATE".

"Finally, A watchful eye upon the state of the church, and of particular members, with a seasonable interposition, may do more towards the preservation of good order than all other things put together."

 

How is believer's immersion against New Testament Apolstolic teaching?

 

Would any individual be welcome in our kind of church assembly,
to sit and listen to the teaching of the Word of God,
for God to possibly teach them "the ways of God more perfectly",
if they presently believe the idea of a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia? Yes.

Would any individual be welcome by our kind of church assembly,
if they feel led by The Holy Spirit to surrender to the Lord in Scriptural baptism,
and join for membership,
if they have the testimony of being a blood-bought child of God,
although they had some other baptism from a group
that has the idea of a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something? Yes.

Upon joining your kind of church assembly, via Scriptural baptism,
would that individual that had had some other baptism from a group
that has the idea of a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something
be a candidate for teaching a class, lay-preaching,
being Ordained as a Deacon, or Licensed or Ordained to Preach? No.

Were this individual who joined your kind of church assembly,
via Scriptural baptism,
that had had some other baptism from a group
that has the idea of a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something
be subject to Church Discipline for speaking on,
teaching, spreading, "sowing discord among the brethren", etc.
about a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something? Yes, it is a schism.

Does your kind of church assembly consider
a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something, as an irregular church teaching,
attempting to usurp The Family of God, The Kingdom of God,
The churches of The Lord Jesus
and the Local Church Headship of Jesus Christ
where God Placed Him? Yes.

Does your kind of church assembly believe
that God is the Author of confusion? No.

Does your kind of church assembly know when, where, and why
a "Universal Invisible" definition
for the word church/ Greek: ekklesia
and/ or the assumption of the existence
of The Holy Spirit 'baptizing' something was INVENTED? Yes.

Reference: The Myth of the Universal Invisible Church Exploded
by Elder Roy Mason


Why And When This Theory Started

"There is no mention of a Universal Church in the Bible. The warmest advocates of the theory will of necessity admit that nearly every instance in which ecclesia, translated church, is found, reference is to an actual, local, visible church. The other few times ecclesia is used, according to the laws of language, the term is used in a generic or abstract sense, and does not at all refer to an all-inclusive Universal, Invisible something. This will be dealt with later.

"Not only does the New Testament know nothing of a Universal, Invisible Church, Christians of the early centuries knew nothing of such. I have read rather widely in the writings of the early church fathers - the writings of the Christian leaders who lived in the early days of Christianity all the way from Polycarp who knew John the apostle, on down. In their writings, they don't speak of an all-embracing spiritual Universal, Invisible Church.

"Doubtlessly they would have been amazed at such a doctrine. They speak of church and churches - never of a vague Universal, Invisible monstrosity composed of all the saved everywhere. They knew the Greek language too well to try to use the term ecclesia in such a sense anyhow.

"As time passed, Satan managed to introduce heresies and perversions among the churches. These eventually produced the Roman Catholic Church. Bear in mind that Roman Catholicism did not spring full-grown into the world. It is the product of error and false doctrine accumulated over a period of several centuries. Dr. R. K. Maiden, a former editor of the Word and Way, of Missouri, has the following to say about the rise of the Universal Church theory:

"The conception and adoption of the Universal Church Theory is the parent heresy in ecclesiology. How and when did this theory originate? The change from the idea of the individual, self-governing church, to the Universal Church had its origin in one of the most colossal blunders of all Christian history - that of making 'ecclesia' and 'basileia' identical.

"So far from being identical, the difference between 'church' and 'kingdom' is so great as to require that they be contrasted rather than compared. Jesus and the writers of the New Testament never confused the two terms. The taproot of the Universal Church theory is the identification of the church and kingdom, making the two coincident, coextensive and coterminous.

"The theory of the identity of church and kingdom and of the universality of the church were twin born. New Testament writers knew nothing of a world church. As nearly as can be determined, the first formal, official identification of church and kingdom was projected when the Roman Empire became nominally Christianized, about the time of the consummation of the great ecclesiastical apostasy.

"It was the Ecumenical Council of Nice, called by the Emperor Constantine, that affirmed and projected as its creed the idea of a 'Catholic' World Church. From then down to the Lutheran Reformation of the sixteenth century, the universal VISIBLE theory of the church held the field, except for the scattered, comparatively obscure, hunted and persecuted little churches known by various names at different times - churches of the New Testament type in doctrine and polity.

"Following the Reformation period and born of the Reformation movement, there emerged a new theory of the church - the UNIVERSAL, INVISIBLE SPIRITUAL THEORY."

"The Universal Visible Church theory is an utter necessity of the Roman Catholic Church. There is not the slightest resemblance between the simply organized, self-governing churches of New Testament times, and the great, complex hierarchical pope-dominated institution that we know as the Roman Catholic Church today. Conditions in that church became so intolerable that they produced the Protestant Reformation. Let it be remembered, and never forgotten that Baptists are NOT Protestants. They existed long before the rise of Protestantism."

"When the Protestant reformers split the Catholic world, they did not make the radical changes they would have made had they gone back to the Bible as their standard of life, and doctrine, and conduct. They of necessity rejected the Roman Church as the Universal Visible Church, but they did not go back to the New Testament Church type.

"What would they do? With what would they replace the doctrine of the Universal Visible Church? They solved the problem by coining the doctrine of the Universal INVISIBLE Church. So the Universal, Invisible, spiritual theory of the church WAS INVENTED!

"Such a thing didn't exist for over fifteen hundred years after Christ started His church! But this is now the working theory of all Protestantism - and sad to say many Baptists have unwittingly been snared by this theory."

etc., etc.