Credobaptists - What about those with disabilities and baptism?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
That is the way that Josiah buffers himself from actually reading what the Bible says rather than his church dogma found in the concord.

I can't consider verses that don't exist. I'm still waiting for, "..... but thou art forbidden to go or baptize or teach any unless and until they hath first attainedth their X birthday." Still waiting for, ".... but thou art forbidden to go or baptize or teach any who hath not first choseth Jesus as their personal savior and hath given adequate, public proof of that choice." "... but thou art forbidden to go or baptize or teach any unless they hath first wepteth buckets of tears in repentance." I would GLADLY consider them if you quoted them, but we both know why you haven't quoted these prohibitions and prerequisites

Yes, of course, SOME of the FEW examples we have of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT did have receivers who APPEAR to be at least children and probably did first believe. Conceded (a long time ago). I just disagree with your rubric that in the SINGULAR, EXCLUSIVE, SOLE case of Baptism (but not ANYTHING ELSE) the rule is most of the examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible: we must do the same and can't do otherwise. You don't agree with the foundational premise of your apologetic either, if you did then you'd forbid Gentiles to perform baptisms, you would forbid them in churches or done in tanks. But the very reality that you DENOUNCE your whole premise in every case EXCEPT occasionally and selectively in ONE - Baptism- is enough to reveal the absurdity of the premise. You don't accept it yourself, why should we?


You insist that we don't consider denominational views or spins on verses.... okay. You insist that we go by the words in the Bible.... okay. Then for 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet never saw the verses you dogmatically insist Jesus said... but you INSIST over and over that you and the Anabaptists are not saying ANYTHING that the Bible does not specifically state. So, where are these bold prerequisites that no Christian saw for over 1500 years but suddenly, this individual in Germany in the 16th Century read?


A blesses Lenten season to all....




- Josiah
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The issue before us us the plethora of prohibitions, limitations, denials, mandates and prerequisites which suddenly in the 16th Century a man applied to the baptism part of "GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH...."

I did some reading on Anabaptists ...

Approximately 4 million Anabaptists live in the world today with adherents scattered across all inhabited continents. In addition to a number of minor Anabaptist groups, the most numerous include the Mennonites at 2.1 million, the German Baptists at 1.5 million, the Amish at 0.3 million and the Hutterites at 0.05 million.

Anabaptists are Christians who believe that baptism is valid only when the candidate confesses his or her faith in Christ and wants to be baptized. This believer's baptism is opposed to baptism of infants, who are not able to make a conscious decision to be baptized. Anabaptists are those who are in a traditional line with the early Anabaptists of the 16th century. Other Christian groups with different roots also practice believer's baptism, such as Baptists, but these groups are not seen as Anabaptist. The Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites are direct descendants of the early Anabaptist movement. Schwarzenau Brethren, Bruderhof, and the Apostolic Christian Church are considered later developments among the Anabaptists.


Medieval dissenters and Anabaptists who held to a literal interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount share in common the following affirmations:

[Other Common Anabaptist Beliefs:]
1. The believer must not swear oaths or refer disputes between believers to law-courts for resolution, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 6:1–11.
2. The believer must not bear arms or offer forcible resistance to wrongdoers, nor wield the sword. No Christian has the jus gladii (the right of the sword). Matthew 5:39
3. Civil government (i.e. "Caesar") belongs to the world. The believer belongs to God's kingdom, so must not fill any office nor hold any rank under government, which is to be passively obeyed. John 18:36 Romans 13:1–7
4. Sinners or unfaithful ones are to be excommunicated, and excluded from the sacraments and from intercourse with believers unless they repent, according to 1 Corinthians 5:9–13 and Matthew 18:15 seq., but no force is to be used towards them.

I am NOT an Anabaptist. I am a Reformed (Calvinist) Baptist in my theological interpretation of scripture. When I read ALL of the distinctives of the Anabaptist movement beliefs, I share only 'believers baptism' with them. I suspect that MennoSota is not an Anabaptist either, but he will need to speak for himself. I am actually not sure that there are ANY Anabaptists on this site.

Since you only want to debate the strictly narrow Anabaptist beliefs of 4 million people living in the world today, rather than the much broader 'believers baptism' of the more numerous Baptist, Evangelical and Pentecostal denominations (among others). I will leave you to it and withdraw from the discussion. I have no dog in the 16th Century Anabaptist fight. Baptists just believe that the bible teaches that "Baptism is for Believers".
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Josiah, what is the purpose of baptism?
If the purpose is not as an outward expression to both the saved and unsaved that God has chosen, via unmerited favor, to redeem the person, then what is the purpose?


REALLY bad logic.


Irrelevant to the issue before us.


You insist that we don't consider denominational views or spins on verses.... okay. You insist that we go by the words in the Bible.... okay. Then for 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet never saw the verses you dogmatically insist Jesus said... but you INSIST over and over that you and the Anabaptists are not saying ANYTHING that the Bible does not specifically state. So, where are these bold prerequisites that no Christian saw for over 1500 years but suddenly, this individual in Germany in the 16th Century read?


The issue is: Beginning suddenly in the 16th Century, the Anabaptist denomination dogmatically insisted that there are these issues that the Bible states are mandated divine prerequisites for "Go.... Baptize..... Teach....." (or at least the second part). For 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet found no verses that made repentance, confession, proof of faith, a min. age and a min. IQ, etc., etc., etc., no one noticed that, but suddenly there was this German in the 16th Century that saw them in the Bible and added them, insisting that we are forbidden to give baptism to any who has not FIRST met the plethora of biblically required prerequisites.


You have REPEATED stated that the Bible SO stresses baptism, that it is a key part of the Great Commission equal to teaching, because it is meaningless, ineffectual ritual that accomplishes nothing and cannot be used for God for anything. But here again, you have offered NOT A WORD from the Bible that states that, you have just endlessly, over and over and over and over, perfectly echoed and parroted the denominational line of the Anabaptists.... while insisting we don't look to the Anabaptists (or any other denomination) but only to the words found in the Bible. So where do you read this verse, "Baptism is SO stressed and is SO key to the Great Commission and of course baptism now saves you, but baptism is a complete waste of time and water, accomplishes nothing, effects nothing and cannot be used by God for anything and you really should be better stewards of your time and ministry." Because I can't find that verse or anything remotely like it.



atpollard has provided all the verses in the Bible that address baptism

A very tiny selection of such.... but none of them speaks of any prerequisites exclusively for the second part of the Great Commission.




A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]


You may leave the discussion, of course....


I never said you (or anyone here at CH) is a member of any Anabaptist church. But the issues before us - anti-paedobaptism and also credobaptism (and beyond) - are inventions of that denomination and are thus associated with it. I realize that in the USA, the "Ana" part is often dropped (they don't believe they are RE-baptizing anyone but administering the first VALID baptism). Many (but by no means all) of the denominations that embrace THIS Anabaptist invention have "Baptist" in their name. And of course, many American non-denoms have accepted it (or just eliminated baptism entirely as has my brothers non-denom, eliminating it because they have embraced the Anabaptist view that it does nothing anyway).

In the USA, this anabaptist belief is found mostly in the various denominations that have made these mandated prerequisites the central, defining point of their denomination and call themselves "Baptists" (dropping the 'ana' part). And I realize, of course, that this Anabaptist invention has been adopted by a tiny few Calvinists (I remain ENTIRELY amazed by that, in spite of your attempt, this Anabaptist view - born out of pure, very radical synergism - would be adopted by a tiny minority of Calvinists - of all possibilities!!! I just scratch my head.... I can't think of a view more at odds with Calvinism!!!). But friend, it's just a historic reality that this invention IS an Anabaptist one.... and today is often the issue to which a small minority of Christians have embraced and often make the centerpiece of their denominational identity (and thus name). Sorry, Arthur, it's just a historic fact. Nothing disparaging was implied. I never called you an Anabaptist, I said you are relating the Anabaptist view ON THIS. I apologize if I was not clear about that. No, this thread does not address ALL the inventions of the Anabaptists (most nearly universally rejected) just one.



See posts 150 and 159 if you wish.



A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
... which suddenly in the 16th Century a man applied to the baptism part of "GO.... BAPTIZE.... TEACH...."
Just picking a nit, but the Great Commission is actually:

Matthew 28:16-20 NASB
16 But the eleven disciples proceeded to Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had designated. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some were doubtful. 18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”

Mark 16:14-18 NASB
14 Afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”

Luke 24:44-49 NASB
44 Now He said to them, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, 46 and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 And behold, I am sending forth the promise of My Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.”

John 20:19-23 NASB
19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, “[fn]Peace be with you.” 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.

Acts 1:6-8 NASB
6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” 7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”

The command is to "go and make desciples" and "go and preach" and "go and proclaim repentence for forgiveness of sin" and "go as Jesus went (to forgive sins)" and "go and be Jesus' witnesses". You are placing too much emphasis on "go and baptize", when 'baptize' follows 'make disciples' and 'teach all I have commanded' follows 'baptize'. How did Paul obey the Great Comission?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.... no, "and AFTER THAT is accomplished and proven, THEN you are no longer forbidden to go and baptize and teach."
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@ Josiah
Modern Baptists actually have a very different theological and historical origin than the anabaptists.
We just happen to also believe that baptizing unbelieving babies is contra-indicated by Jesus, Apostolic commands and scriptural examples. Hence it has nothing to do with age and everything to do with obeying the Apostolic commands to believe, repent and be baptized ... no baptizing without belief and repentance.

None of the other restrictions you want to discuss are advocated by Baptists (that is why I do not argue those points.)
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.... no, "and AFTER THAT is accomplished and proven, THEN you are no longer forbidden to go and baptize and teach."
You know, there are a lot of words that are not in the bible.
I am pretty sure that there are no verses that specifically prohibit torturing people to get them to convert, but I still think that torture runs contrary to the biblical example. :)
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
You know, there are a lot of words that are not in the bible.
I am pretty sure that there are no verses that specifically prohibit torturing people to get them to convert, but I still think that torture runs contrary to the biblical example. :)
If that is to be our guidepost, then infant baptism isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it isn't proper. And we're done. :)
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I can't consider verses that don't exist. I'm still waiting for, "..... but thou art forbidden to go or baptize or teach any unless and until they hath first attainedth their X birthday." Still waiting for, ".... but thou art forbidden to go or baptize or teach any who hath not first choseth Jesus as their personal savior and hath given adequate, public proof of that choice." "... but thou art forbidden to go or baptize or teach any unless they hath first wepteth buckets of tears in repentance." I would GLADLY consider them if you quoted them, but we both know why you haven't quoted these prohibitions and prerequisites

Yes, of course, SOME of the FEW examples we have of baptisms that happen to be recorded in the NT did have receivers who APPEAR to be at least children and probably did first believe. Conceded (a long time ago). I just disagree with your rubric that in the SINGULAR, EXCLUSIVE, SOLE case of Baptism (but not ANYTHING ELSE) the rule is most of the examples that happen to be recorded in the Bible: we must do the same and can't do otherwise. You don't agree with the foundational premise of your apologetic either, if you did then you'd forbid Gentiles to perform baptisms, you would forbid them in churches or done in tanks. But the very reality that you DENOUNCE your whole premise in every case EXCEPT occasionally and selectively in ONE - Baptism- is enough to reveal the absurdity of the premise. You don't accept it yourself, why should we?


You insist that we don't consider denominational views or spins on verses.... okay. You insist that we go by the words in the Bible.... okay. Then for 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet never saw the verses you dogmatically insist Jesus said... but you INSIST over and over that you and the Anabaptists are not saying ANYTHING that the Bible does not specifically state. So, where are these bold prerequisites that no Christian saw for over 1500 years but suddenly, this individual in Germany in the 16th Century read?


A blesses Lenten season to all....




- Josiah
Josiah, you have created a red herring and hide behind it. Come out of your self-imposed fantasy world and discuss with us. Or, recognize that your position is irrelevant and illegitimate.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
REALLY bad logic.


Irrelevant to the issue before us.


You insist that we don't consider denominational views or spins on verses.... okay. You insist that we go by the words in the Bible.... okay. Then for 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet never saw the verses you dogmatically insist Jesus said... but you INSIST over and over that you and the Anabaptists are not saying ANYTHING that the Bible does not specifically state. So, where are these bold prerequisites that no Christian saw for over 1500 years but suddenly, this individual in Germany in the 16th Century read?


The issue is: Beginning suddenly in the 16th Century, the Anabaptist denomination dogmatically insisted that there are these issues that the Bible states are mandated divine prerequisites for "Go.... Baptize..... Teach....." (or at least the second part). For 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet found no verses that made repentance, confession, proof of faith, a min. age and a min. IQ, etc., etc., etc., no one noticed that, but suddenly there was this German in the 16th Century that saw them in the Bible and added them, insisting that we are forbidden to give baptism to any who has not FIRST met the plethora of biblically required prerequisites.


You have REPEATED stated that the Bible SO stresses baptism, that it is a key part of the Great Commission equal to teaching, because it is meaningless, ineffectual ritual that accomplishes nothing and cannot be used for God for anything. But here again, you have offered NOT A WORD from the Bible that states that, you have just endlessly, over and over and over and over, perfectly echoed and parroted the denominational line of the Anabaptists.... while insisting we don't look to the Anabaptists (or any other denomination) but only to the words found in the Bible. So where do you read this verse, "Baptism is SO stressed and is SO key to the Great Commission and of course baptism now saves you, but baptism is a complete waste of time and water, accomplishes nothing, effects nothing and cannot be used by God for anything and you really should be better stewards of your time and ministry." Because I can't find that verse or anything remotely like it.





A very tiny selection of such.... but none of them speaks of any prerequisites exclusively for the second part of the Great Commission.




A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah
Falling back to your red herring. I'm done with you as you are purposely missing the point so as not to address the issue of the thread. Enjoy your self-created fantasy world.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
If that is to be our guidepost, then infant baptism isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it isn't proper. And we're done. :)
For what purpose do you advocate infant baptism, since it is not ever mentioned in the Bible.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
@ Josiah
Modern Baptists actually have a very different theological and historical origin than the anabaptists.
Sort of. The founder of the first Baptist churches in England, from which American Baptist churches descend, was converted to his views on baptism, the purely representational view of the Lord's Supper, opposition to formal creeds, and more...from living among and studying with Anabaptists on the European continent.

In my memory, whenever Baptists have been associated with Anabaptists in these discussions, it was on the basis of beliefs and practices that they share. I don't recall anyone intimating that today's Baptists are in agreement with the Amish on lifestyle choices, polity, or etc.





.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I did some reading on Anabaptists ...



I am NOT an Anabaptist.
No, but the two are of the same family of faith or branch of Christianity, much like the ELCA and the Missouri Synod Lutherans (a hot topic here not long ago). And the Baptists were originally Anabaptists. They picked up their distinctive doctrines from the Anabaptists, both figuratively and literally.

Of course it is also true that other influences played upon the Baptists in later generations and, also, that they broke into different groups as has happened with other denominations as well. Some are Calvinistic--as you noted--but some are also Free Will or Primitive or even Seventh-day. But the Baptists do take their start from the Anabaptists.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
you are purposely missing the point .


I'm not missing any point.... you keep CONSTANTLY parroting (perfectly) so many of the Anabaptists talking points on this issue, it's IMPOSSIBLE to miss it!

I'm just noting when you use incredibly bad logic (as you did above but again evading that) and I'm playing by your rules: That we disallow and ignore any denominational spins and simply go by what the Bible states.

You've parroted (perfectly) - over and over and over and over again, in thread after thread - several of the prohibitions, limitations, denials and prerequisites that the founder of the Anabaptist denomination suddenly, out-of-the-blue, invented in the 16th Century for baptism. But you've never shown where Scripture states these various prohibitions, limitations, denials and prerequisites for Baptism. You ASSUMED and SPECULATED about examples (all irrelevant)... but so far, just the (perfect) parroting of a denomination's spin.... and NOT A WORD from any Scripture stating the prohibitions and prerequisites you now dogmatically impose.



The issue is this: The dogmatic insistence of the Anabaptist denomination that there are these issues that the Bible states are mandated divine prerequisites for "Go.... Baptize..... Teach....." (or at least the second part). For 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet found no verses that made repentance, confession, proof of faith, a min. age and a min. IQ, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. as divinely mandated prerequisites; no one noticed any of those for 1500 years, but suddenly there was this individual in the 16th Century that read these plethora of newly discovered prerequisites in the NT and added them, insisting that we are thus forbidden to give baptism to any who has not FIRST met all these biblically required prerequisites. You insist that we disregard all the denominational spin of the Baptists and others and instead, consider only the words we all can read in the Bible... and you insist that ALL these plethora of limitations, prohibitions, mandates and prerequisites are all stated in Scripture - but for some reason, you won't quote those Scriptures. Instead, you just constantly and perfectly parrot the denominational spin of the Baptists on this point - over and over and over and over, in thread after thread.




atpollard said:
Modern Baptists actually have a very different theological and historical origin than the anabaptists.


Read what I stated in post 164



- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If that is to be our guidepost, then infant baptism isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible, but that doesn't mean it isn't proper. And we're done. :)
So we SHOULD torture people into conversion because it isn't specifically mentioned in the bible? Is that your position? I guess that would then leave us free to baptize their unbelieving children. :shake:
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
So we SHOULD torture people into conversion because it isn't specifically mentioned in the bible? Is that your position? I guess that would then leave us free to baptize their unbelieving children.


Should we forbid teaching and baptizing blonde haired people because nowhere does it command us to do so and there's NOT ONE known example of any blonde person being taught or baptized in the NT?

And of course God doesn't COMMAND us to torture people, He does to go... baptize... teach. And I don't think you hold that baptism kills anyone (spiritually or physically). It's not a good comparison, lol. Yes, there are SOME Presbyterians who don't dogmatically insist on all the Anabaptist prerequistes (indeed, they often baptize babies!!!) but believe it's just a cute, sweet custom that God ODDLY mandated and stressed so much and made equal to teaching. But they don't believe they are torturing the baby. They are not acting in direct conflict with the Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (or "Thou Canst NOT go or baptize or teach any under the age of X or who hath not first chose Jesus as their personal savior and given adequate public proof of such.")



But friend, I think you have the situation reversed. The issue before us is the dogmatic insistence of the Anabaptist denomination (and those that echo its stance on baptism) that there is a plethora of issues that the Bible states are mandated divine prerequisites for "Go.... Baptize..... Teach....." (or at least the second part). For 1500+ years, every Christian on the planet found no verses that made repentance, confession, proof of faith, a min. age and a min. IQ, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc. as divinely mandated prerequisites; no one noticed any of those for 1500 years, but suddenly there was this individual in the 16th Century that read these plethora of newly discovered prerequisites in the NT and suddenly imposed them as limitations and prerequisites, dogmatically insisting that we are thus forbidden to give baptism to any who has not FIRST met all these biblically required prerequisites. Now, it seems you waver over whether all these things are CO-requisites (a point Lutherans would agree with you concerning but not Baptists) or whether they are PRErequisites (the distinction is not lost because it IS the debate that Anabaptist started 500 years ago; a point which makes you traditional on this or Anabaptist on this). I'm curious where you eventually come out on that....



A blessed Lenten season to all....



- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,578
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
And the Baptists were originally Anabaptists. They picked up their distinctive doctrines from the Anabaptists, both figuratively and literally.

H. Leon McBeth, retired professor of church history at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas disagrees:

Baptist Beginnings

by Leon McBeth

Two Kinds of Baptists

Baptists came into existence as two distinct groups, with somewhat different beliefs and practices, but with believer’s baptism in common. The two main strands were known as General Baptists and Particular Baptists. There were also a few Sabbatarian or Seventh-day Baptists in the late seventeenth century, but they were never numerous.

General Baptists.–The General Baptists got their name because they believed in a general atonement. They believed Christ died for all people generally, and that whoever would believe in Christ could be saved. The first General Baptist church, led by John Smyth, was founded in Amsterdam, Holland, in 1608/09. Its members were English refugees who had fled England to escape religious persecution.

John Smyth was a minister in the Church of England. As a student and later as a pastor and teacher, he developed Puritan and Separatist views and sought to bring biblical reform to the church. When this failed, he joined a small Separatist congregation in Gainsborough, near London. As these Separatists grew so that it became dangerous for them to meet openly, they divided into two groups for convenience. One group moved to Scrooby Manor, where they were led by John Robinson, William Brewster, and William Bradford. Later, this little band became the nucleus of the “Pilgrim Fathers” who sailed to America on the Mayflower.

The Gainsborough remnant, led by John Smyth, was in daily danger. English law prohibited such independent or dissenting churches, and King James I had vowed to deal harshly with any who refused to attend the Church of England. By 1607, the Gainsborough group had decided to migrate across the English Channel to Amsterdam, a city that provided religious liberty.

When these English exiles, led by John Smyth and a layman named Thomas Helwys, left England, they were not yet Baptists. In Amsterdam, they came into contact with Dutch Mennonites, a branch of the Anabaptist family that taught religious liberty and baptism of believers only. Historians have debated the extent of Mennonite influence upon later developments among the English exiles. The Smyth-Helwys congregation continued to study the Bible and sought to follow the way of the Lord more completely.

By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a “covenant,” rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.

In 1611, Thomas Helwys led a portion of this church back to London, where they set up the first Baptist church on English soil. By 1650, there were at least forty-seven General Baptist churches in and around London. They believed in a general atonement, baptism of believers only, religious liberty, and other doctrines still associated with Baptists. The General Baptists also believed that it was possible for one to fall from grace or lose his salvation.

Particular Baptists.–The Particular Baptists came into existence a generation later than General Baptists. Named for their view of particular atonement, they believed that Christ died only for a particular group, the elect. They were deeply influenced by the teachings of John Calvin.

Particular Baptists emerged out of an Independent congregation.
While Separatists, as the name implies, separated totally from the Church of England, the Independents sought to maintain autonomous congregations without a radical break with the state church. Ultimately, most of the Independents were driven to more complete separation. As early as 1616, Henry Jacob was leader of a small Independent congregation in London. The next two pastors were John Lathrop and Henry Jessey. This church is often called the “JLJ Church” from the initials of these three early pastors.

Members of this Separatist JLJ congregation were in constant conversation about the meaning of baptism. By 1630, one member withdrew, possibly in opposition to infant baptism. In 1633, a number of members withdrew from the JLJ church to form another congregation, and perhaps some of them were rebaptized as believers at that time. In 1638, several others withdrew from the JLJ church to join the 1633 group, and old church records state clearly that in 1638 they received baptism as believers. Historians have therefore concluded that the first Particular Baptist church dates at least from 1638, and possibly even from 1633. Though their baptism was for believers only, at first it was administered by sprinkling or pouring.

By 1650, there were a number of Particular Baptist churches in and around London. In 1644, seven of them had drafted a confession of faith which showed some of their distinctive views. In addition to particular atonement, they taught believer’s baptism by immersion and insisted that a person who is once saved is always saved.


Believer’s Baptism by Immersion

By 1640, there were at least two Particular Baptist churches, and both became convinced that baptism should be by immersion. Old church records state: 1640. 3rd Mo: The Church became two by mutuall consent just half being with Mr. P. Barebone, & ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Richd Blunt with him being convinced of Baptism yt also it ought to be by dipping in ye Body into Ye Water, resembling Burial and riseing again.

Apparently, members of the Barebone congregation reached this conclusion from a study of the New Testament. Immersion was a new practice, for their old records speak of “none having then so practiced it in England to professed Believers.” These two congregations reinstituted immersion in different ways. One church sent Richard Blunt to Holland to confer with a group of Mennonites, who practiced immersion. Possibly, he received immersion from them and returned to immerse others of the congregation. The other church simply began to immerse without alluding to historical precedent. “Where there is a beginning,” the pastor said, “some must be first.” The First London Confession of Particular Baptists, adopted in 1644, says of baptism, “The way and manner of the dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under the water.” The General Baptists were probably practicing immersion by 1650, but their first confession specifically calling for baptism by immersion only appeared in 1660.


The Baptist Name

Many people assume that Baptists got their name from John the Baptist. This is not the case. Like most religious groups, Baptists were named by their opponents. The name comes from the Baptist practice of immersion.

The first known reference to these believers in England as “Baptists” was in 1644. They did not like the name and did not use it of themselves until years later. The early Baptists preferred to be called “Brethren” or “Brethren of the Baptized Way.” Sometimes they called themselves the “Baptized Churches.” Early opponents of the Baptists often called them Anabaptists or other less complimentary names.

Baptists rejected the name Anabaptist, not wishing to be confused with or identified with the people who bore that name. (In fact, the true Anabaptists were not fond of that name either, because it had unfavorable overtones from early church history.) Even as late as the eighteenth century, many Baptists referred to themselves as “the Christians commonly (tho’ falsely) called Anabaptists.”

Perhaps the most startling practice of early English Baptists was their total immersion for baptism after 1640. Crowds would often gather to witness a Baptist immersion service. Some ridiculed, as did Daniel Featley, describing the Baptists as people who “plung’d over head and eares.” The nickname “Baptist” was given to describe the people who practiced this strange form of baptism.



Conclusion

Baptists originated in England in a time of intense religious reform. They sought to recover and proclaim the faith of the New Testament as first given by Jesus and his apostles. Since then they have spread their teachings and churches in many lands and many cultures. They have never wavered from that original desire to hold and proclaim the simple faith of the New Testament church.

As a modern Particular Baptist ... I do not trace my theology to Anabaptist roots.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I do not trace my theology to Anabaptist roots.


See post 164.


Friend, ON THIS TOPIC, the topic we are discussing, the topic of the thread, there are those echoing the Anabaptist position on this (even making it the focus of their theology and perhaps even choosing to stress that in the name of their denomination). One can hold the Anabaptist position ON BAPTISM without necessarily being a card-carrying officially registered member of a parish founded by Thomas Muntzer and owned and operated by a Baptist denomination or agreeing with the Anabaptists on ANYTHING else. Whether they've dropped the "ana" from titles or not. There are Anglicans who hold passionately to the Lutheran position on Communion, it doesn't mean they ERGO are a card-carrying member of a parish that was founded by Martin Luther and hold to ALL the positions of Lutheranism (bad example because Lutherans don't have a unique position on the Eucharist).... but the Anabaptists DID invented a new and VERY distinctive dogma on Baptism.... one that many Baptists and some others also hold (taken from the Anabaptists): they are a tiny, tiny minority of Christians but like the AnaBAPTISTS often make THIS the distinctive, defining focus of their theology. Again, see post 164. Then let's return to the Anabaptist (and now Baptist, the "ana" dropped by them) prohibitions and prerequistes on Baptism.....



- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
As a modern Particular Baptist ... I do not trace my theology to Anabaptist roots.
A lot of Baptists seem determined to think that way. Many are determined to believe that they are apostolic in some way. The Landmarker Baptists, as you know, argue that there is an Apostolic Succession of Baptists through history, even though there is absolutely no evidence of that. And many Baptists insist that they are not Protestants, even though everyone else does and it's patently obvious that they are. Then we have your contention that they are self-starting and are not an English transplant from Anabaptists in the Low Countries. But of course that is where the Baptists' distinctive doctrines come from, and that's simply a fact of history.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom