How Baptist Successionism undermines what it means to be a Baptist

FSSL

Well-known member
Staff member
Administrator
Doctor
Joined
Jan 31, 2012
Messages
7,668
Reaction score
508
Points
113
Location
Gulf Shores, Alabama
A belief, made popular in 1931 that Baptists can trace their roots, in a genealogical succession back to John the Baptist.

People who subscribe to this call themselves (and are know as): Landmarkists, Baptist-briders

The hard-liners are Landmarkists (a legitimate baptism is one administered by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by ..... John the Baptist)

Those uncomfortable with being hard-liners subscribe to what is called the "Spiritual Kinship Theory"

THE PROBLEMATIC BELIEF: The validation of Baptists is based on a succession of Baptist groups going back to John the Baptist.

Practical problems:
  • History is based on documentation and verifiable facts. A succession cannot be proven by historical documentation. In fact, a number of statements and documents that do exist is that Baptists, from their beginnings in the 1600s REJECT an affiliation with anabaptists.
  • A succession theory violates a primary Baptist distinctive of separation. Why would Baptists want to be identified with antiTrinitarians and full-blown gnostics?
  • Since the Bible is the basis of authority, why is a contrived, mythical succession used to validate what a Baptist is?
  • Immersion by Baptism and Soul Liberty are not enough to distinguish a group as Baptist.
  • Baptist-Briders reject the idea that Baptists are protestants. However, the groups the Baptist-briders say we come from were protesting the Catholic church and broke away at great cost.
  • If you are not baptized in a Baptist church, you need to be rebaptized.

Here are the groups identified as "Baptists" in the Trail of Blood. Many are Christian, but not all.

Montanists: Charismatics which believed their revelatory prophecies were either on par or exceeded the authority of Christ and Paul. They allowed dice playing (lol-thrown in to convince the hardended of all Baptists)
Paulicians: Gnostics (enough said)
Waldenses: close in beliefs to Particular Baptists. Calvinists. Interesting... Baptist-briders reject Calvinistic thought. Why would they say they came from them? 
Anabaptists: John Smyth complained in 1608: "...against the term Anabaptist as a name of reproach unjustly cast upon them [Baptists]"
Helwys split from Smyth when Smyth became an Anabaptist.
The Second London Baptist Confession says, clearly: "...which are commonly (though falsly) called ANABAPTISTS"
 
Agreed.

I have heard the need for baptism to be done by a church of like faith as a doctrine of many different religions and have heard this topic presented with various reasons by various IFB churches.

Here are the explanation summaries I have heard among IFBs:
- Baptism shows association with a group.  Problem:  It isn't taught that way in the Bible.
- Baptism is necessary for membership in OUR church - baptized into the body.  Problem: Takes away from the type of baptism to now be a ritual for membership.
- Baptism is given to the local church's authority.  Since XYZ is not really a church because they teach some falsehood, you have not really been baptized even though you are saved. 

All of these seem to be taking away from the Biblical purpose and function of Baptism.
 
Binaca Chugger said:
All of these seem to be taking away from the Biblical purpose and function of Baptism.

Absolutely great points. Also, the Lord's Supper is closed to only members of that particular church.
 
FSSL said:
Binaca Chugger said:
All of these seem to be taking away from the Biblical purpose and function of Baptism.

Absolutely great points. Also, the Lord's Supper is closed to only members of that particular church.

Seems like the pride of the IFB movement has permeated to confuse these functions in the local IFB church: "My church is the only one good enough to..., or that counts for...."

As an IFBer myself, I would claim no relationship to the Baptist Briders
 
So flawed, I do not know where to begin.

First, Baptist Briders.  Those today usually come out of the Baptist Bible Fellowship, particularly Baptist Bible College of Springfield, MO before the turn of the century.  (At tleast the ones I have run across in my experience)  They tend to be more involved with J.N. Darby's infuence than the Trail of Blood.  They are called briders because of their teaching regarding the dispensation of the church.  The "church" is the bride of Christ, and the only true church is Baptist.  When the rapture comes, it is not for Christians, but for the Church.  So, unless you are a member of the true church -- i.e. a properly founded and doctrinally right Baptist church -- then you don't go in the rapture because you are not the "bride" only a guest at the marriage supper.

The greatest problem you have with defining who Baptists are is your attempt at painting them all over with a Calvinist soteriology.  Being a Baptist is not a matter of soteriological doctrine, but one of distinctives in practice.  There are so many different Baptist groups today, and many of those preach a false doctrine, but are still identified as Baptists, and the same has been true throughout our history.  Before, they were not called Baptists but other names their enemies gave them such as Waldensians, Montanists, Petrobrucians, Novationists, Anabaptists, etc.  Today, we have General Baptists, Freewill, Union, Two-Seed-In-The-One Predestinarians, Seventh Day, Latter Day, 6 Principle, Landmarkers, Primitives, etc for literally hundreds of differences. 

The idea of "why didn't we just call them all Christians" is representative of the Reformed attitude of striking at the doctrine of the LOCAL CHURCH.  The reformers are looking to take over the Baptists and others today, having no certain denominational affiliation.  They are very "Catholic" in that regard, believing in the universal church. 

Lastly, regarding alien baptism.  Baptism is NOT a sign of the covenant replacing the sign of circumcision given to Abraham.  Neither is Baptism regenerative.  It is simply a symbolic ordinance which identifies you with your local church.  Biblically, baptism is how folks who got saved were "added to the church."  Baptists were called Anabaptists because the baby baptizers accused them of "re-baptizing" them when they got saved as adults.  To that crowd, Baptism is a one-time act because of the grace it confers on its subjects.  But we see in the Johannine Christians in Ephesus in Acts 19 that baptism is not a one-time or once-for-all-time act.  If your baptism, at whatever age, was in an apostate "church" that did not preach the gospel, naturally you were baptized following your confession of true faith.  Furthermore, if your baptism following your conversion experience was in a different (alien) church of unlike faith and practice, even if that church adhered to a good gospel message, you were re-baptized upon joining the Baptist church because baptism is identity with that local church.  To explain, why would a Baptist church accept a Methodist into membership?  But if the Methodist became convinced that the Baptists were more doctrinally true, then he should rightly be baptized Baptist.  John the Baptist did NOT preach a different gospel, but he was of a different "church" being before Christ built His church (Matt. 16).  That is why the Johannine Christians in Ephesus had not received the Holy Ghost, and why Paul re-baptized them in the name of Christ.
 
Term Baptist was used as a pejorative by the Catholic Church when describing dissenters who required baptism when converting from Catholicism.

I prefer the name Christian as it is a NT word, Baptist is not.

But I am a Baptist by conviction.
 
FSSL said:
The hard-liners are Landmarkists (a legitimate baptism is one administered by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by ..... John the Baptist)
Uh oh! What if all the Landmarkists/Baptist briders, then, have an incomplete baptism?!

Act 19:1  And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
Act 19:2  He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
Act 19:3  And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Act 19:4  Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Act 19:5  When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.


Maybe these re-re-re-re-baptizers need to get re-baptized!
 
admin said:
I have a simple question for you...

These groups, you say are "Baptists," Paulicians and Donatists. If they were around today, would you require them to be rebaptized to be a member of your church?

Perhaps not a simple question for a Trail of Blooder.
 
FSSL said:
admin said:
I have a simple question for you...

These groups, you say are "Baptists," Paulicians and Donatists. If they were around today, would you require them to be rebaptized to be a member of your church?

Perhaps not a simple question for a Trail of Blooder.

Oh, its a simple question alrighty.  Just out of order.  Again, this is at least the second time that you seemed to have prioritized baptism over faith.  Which is most important to you?
 
PappaBear said:
Oh, its a simple question alrighty.  Just out of order.  Again, this is at least the second time that you seemed to have prioritized baptism over faith.  Which is most important to you?

I am not the one who considers the Donatists and Paulicians as "Baptists." You do. I am just striking at the heart of the issue.

If they were "Baptists" then their faith would be assumed. I am wondering why you would include Gnostic Paulicians and hierarchical Donatists as "Baptists."
 
FSSL said:
I am not the one who considers the Donatists and Paulicians as "Baptists." You do. I am just striking at the heart of the issue.

If they were "Baptists" then their faith would be assumed. I am wondering why you would include Gnostic Paulicians and hierarchical Donatists as "Baptists."

Do you read any of my posts?  Or do you just see my screen name and decide to post something snarky to try and impress Ransom?

Do you assume the faith of all Baptists?  I do not.  I grew up near a "Hardshell Baptist" church that met one Sunday a month, the frozen few.  Once I had an opportunity to speak with a church member, and it turned into a witnessing situation because the fella did not have a clue about salvation in Jesus Christ.  Do you assume the faith of all Free Will Baptist Churches?  All Charismatic Baptist Churches?  In West Virginia in the early 90's, for a couple of years I lived down the road from a snake-handling, stove-hugging Baptist Church.  Would you assume their faith?  Baptists come in a lot of different stripes, beliefs, sizes, kinds and soteriologies.  To "assume" their faith is foolish.

And obviously you have ignored what I have said on this before. 

PappaBear said:
The greatest problem you have with defining who Baptists are is your attempt at painting them all over with a Calvinist soteriology.  Being a Baptist is not a matter of soteriological doctrine, but one of distinctives in practice.  There are so many different Baptist groups today, and many of those preach a false doctrine, but are still identified as Baptists, and the same has been true throughout our history.  Before, they were not called Baptists but other names their enemies gave them such as Waldensians, Montanists, Petrobrucians, Novationists, Anabaptists, etc.  Today, we have General Baptists, Freewill, Union, Two-Seed-In-The-One Predestinarians, Seventh Day, Latter Day, 6 Principle, Landmarkers, Primitives, etc for literally hundreds of differences. 

I consider the Mennonites as among the Baptists, coming down from Menno Simons (an early Baptist). I even attended school with some at Tennessee Temple, where I first became acquainted with them and the practice of their women wearing the head covering.  Later, a good friend of mine started a church in a heavily Mennonite/Amish area of Maryland, and I got to know of his ministry among them quite well.  Many, though having a "Baptist" background, believe and preach a works salvation of keeping their traditions.  But there are some who are deeply spiritual and believe, teach, and preach salvation by grace through faith (those were the kind I met at TTU).  You can't tell which is which by looking, so you have to ask!  So if a Mennonite were to approach me about joining our church, my first question would be the same one I ask of everyone with that interest, whether they are from another Baptist Church, a Methodist Church, Presby, Church of Christ, Roman Catholic (and yes, I have had all those express the same interest at some time). 

"Have you been saved?"  Most will give a simple yes, whereupon I will ask for a few specifics of their testimony and faith in Christ.  Only after a clear testimony of a new birth in Christ will I move on to questioning their baptism.  It is shocking some of the answers I have received over the years from Baptists steeped in Baptist preaching and teaching.  Nevertheless, I have heard about being saved when they saw a vision of angels, or when God gave them a job in answer to their prayer, or after a near death "experience," or when they were baptized.  When hearing those kinds of testimony, I never recommend them to the church for membership.  They need to deal with first things first, and that is being born again.  I have met a lot of lost "Baptists" over the years, enough to know it is incredibly foolish for someone to say that "their faith is assumed." 

Baptism is a secondary issue, not the heart of the matter. 
 
PappaBear said:
Do you read any of my posts?  Or do you just see my screen name and decide to post something snarky to try and impress Ransom?

Impress Ransom? You have an overactive imagine... and it is further demonstrated ....

Do you assume the faith of all Baptists?  I do not.

Since the subject is related to tracing a so-called geanological line back to John the Baptists of the true Christians (interjecting Donatists and other nonbelievers into the scheme), then "yes," the Trail of Blooders do assume and proudly proclaim the faith of these unbelievers as they were martyred for the faith.

Try to keep up with your own historical assumptions.
 
FSSL said:
Since the subject is related to tracing a so-called geanological line back to John the Baptists of the true Christians (interjecting Donatists and other nonbelievers into the scheme), then "yes," the Trail of Blooders do assume and proudly proclaim the faith of these unbelievers as they were martyred for the faith.

Try to keep up with your own historical assumptions.

I say I do not.  You turn around and say I do.  Now ... let me think ... who should I believe about what I believe, me or you?  Hmmm... such a tough choice, ya know?

Is there any subject you don't think yourself to be so lordly and all-knowing in?
 
PappaBear said:
FSSL said:
Since the subject is related to tracing a so-called geanological line back to John the Baptists of the true Christians (interjecting Donatists and other nonbelievers into the scheme), then "yes," the Trail of Blooders do assume and proudly proclaim the faith of these unbelievers as they were martyred for the faith.

Try to keep up with your own historical assumptions.

I say I do not.  You turn around and say I do.  Now ... let me think ... who should I believe about what I believe, me or you?  Hmmm... such a tough choice, ya know?

Is there any subject you don't think yourself to be so lordly and all-knowing in?

Oh! I thought you believed that the "Baptists" in the Trail of Blood were communities of believers.
 
PappaBear said:
Is there any subject you don't think yourself to be so lordly and all-knowing in?

Ransom's salvation.
...but I will admit that I have a good nose for someone who is desperate.
 
FSSL said:
Oh! I thought you believed that the "Baptists" in the Trail of Blood were communities of believers.

There you go, thinking again!  Try a little reading, instead.
 
PappaBear said:
FSSL said:
PappaBear said:
Is there any subject you don't think yourself to be so lordly and all-knowing in?

Ransom's salvation.

Whose faith you have merely "assumed."
There you go, thinking again!  Try a little reading, instead.

... from his testimony elsewhere.

It appears your desperation has gotten the best of you on this thread. Good luck enjoying tracing your variety of Baptist through the ages with gnostics!
 
<shrug>  I cannot force the blind to see.
 
And good luck identifying yourself with Baptist murdering arrogant papists like the frozen chosen.
 
Top