The Birth of Anabaptism

Status
Not open for further replies.
The idea that churches that practice infant baptism and that don't immerse aren't true NT churches is part and parcel of consistent Baptist thought and always has been. (That's not to say that Baptists believe that they are the only true Christians, although some extremists, often called "Baptist briders" have held this or something close to it).

I think the following is a representative sample of Baptist thought (and anabaptist, for that matter, although anabaptists weren't generally concerned with immersion, that seeming to come later in both Germany and England):

The question of what our position leads to on separation has been the subject of much writing and discussion. Perhaps the best and most logical explanation of our position comes from the pen of a respected member of the Southern Presbyterian Church. R.L. Dabney, one of their greatest theologians, provides the following argument for a consistent immersionist position. Dabney wrote that:

The odious ecclesiastical consequences of the Immersionist dogma should be pressed; because they form a most potent and just argument against it. All parties are agreed, that baptism is the initiatory rite which gives membership in the visible Church of Christ. The great commission was: Go ye, and disciple all nations, baptizing them into the Trinity. Baptism recognizes and constitutes the outward discipleship. Least of all, can any immersionist dispute this ground. Now, if all other forms of baptism than immersion are not only irregular, but null and void, all unimmersed persons are out of the visible Church. But if each and every member of a paedobaptist visible Church is thus unchurched: of course the whole body is unchurched. All paedobaptist societies, then, are guilty of an intrusive error, when they pretend to the character of a visible Church of Christ. Consequently, they can have no ministry; and this for several reasons. Surely no valid office can exist in an association whose claim to be an ecclesiastical commonwealth is utterly invalid. When the temple is nonexistent, there can be no actual pillars to that temple. How can an unauthorized herd of unbaptized persons, to whom Christ concedes no church authority, confer any valid office? Again: it is preposterous that a man should receive and hold office in a commonwealth where he himself has no citizenship; but this unimmersed paedobaptist minister, so-called, is no member of any visible Church. There are no real ministers in the world, except the Immersionist preachers! The pretensions of all others, therefore, to act as ministers, and to administer the sacraments, are sinful intrusions. It is hard to see how any intelligent and conscientious Immersionist can do any act, which countenances or sanctions this profane intrusion. They should not allow any weak inclinations of fraternity and peace to sway their consciences in this point of high principle. They are bound, then, not only to practice close communion, but to refuse all ministerial recognition and communion to these intruders. The sacraments cannot go beyond the pale of the visible Church. Hence, the same stern denunciations ought to be hurled at the Lord's Supper in paedobaptist societies, and at all their prayers and preachings in public, as at the iniquity of "baby-sprinkling." The enlightened immersionist should treat all these societies, just as he does that 'Synagogue of Satan,' the Papal Church: there may be many good, misguided believers in them; but no church character, ministry, nor sacraments whatever.

If God's Word teaches believer's immersion (which it does), followed by the observance of the Lord's Supper (which it does), then what Dabney wrote was correct. If an assembly is not "keeping the ordinances as they were delivered," then it is not a New Testament assembly. Therefore, a true New Testament assembly should not have religious association with them. This does not mean one cannot have personal fellowship with believers of another denomination. As Dabney implies, however, to recognize them as New Testament ministers of the Gospel is wrong, because they do not observe the New Testament ordinances, and thus violate Scripture.
The above is taken from "What Is An Historic Baptist?" by David A. West, Sr. http://www.reformedreader.org/histb.htm

[Edited on 1-21-2006 by Pilgrim]
 
Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.

I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.

No dice! We love you all. :bigsmile:

Martin
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.

I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.

No dice! We love you all. :bigsmile:

Martin

Um...yeah.

I don't hate baptists. To quote RC Sproul Sr., I love them. they are so teasable!
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.

I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.

No dice! We love you all. :bigsmile:

Martin

:handshake: No hatred here, Martin. I have many Baptist friends, probably moreso than Presbyterian.

Well, that "brainless stuff" is posted at The Reformed Reader, which is probably the premier Reformed Baptist site on the web today, with many more resources than what is available on the Founders site, for example. So if you have a problem with it, take it up with your Historic Southern Baptist brethren there! :P
 
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Well if Dabney wrote brainless stuff like that, it's not surprising if he got a brainless response.

I really think some of you guys would love it if Baptists in general really hated you so that you could hate them back with a clear conscience.

No dice! We love you all. :bigsmile:

Martin

Thanks Martin.

What's Love Got ta Do withit? :sing:

Love is not the issue. I applaud any man that sticks by his guns and says if you get the sacraments wrong....NO CIGAR...It's not a true church...AND I love you with Christ's love.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top