SDA Successionism much like KJVO Baptist Successionism

[FSSL]

It is a book I referenced, and does not mean that I have to agree 100% with every thing the author states.

Then quoting the part you disagree with is a curious practice. It did not make your point. You contradicted the book.

[quote author=PappaBear]I still maintain that the Anabaptists which Smyth applied to are synonomous with "Baptists."  Rejecting his own se-baptism and seeking baptism under a proper line of authority was the right thing to do.[/quote]

Strangely, you go against what is reality... so... I am interested in your take on the other thread.

 

[PappaBear]

It is a book I referenced, and does not mean that I have to agree 100% with every thing the author states.

Then quoting the part you disagree with is a curious practice. It did not make your point. You contradicted the book.

Not actually, if you remember the CONTEXT of my quote... here, let me refresh your memory...

None of the founding Baptists believed in successionism. G.H. Orchard was not a founding Baptist.

In your view, was John Smyth a "founding Baptist"?

And to drive the point of this question home...

[quote author=Jason K. Lee, The Theology of John Smyth:  Puritan, Separatist, Baptist, Mennonite"]Helwys and some others wrote two letters to discourage the Mennonites from accepting them.  In his second letter to the Mennonites urging them not to accept Smyth, Helwys refers to successionism as "Antichrists chiefe hold."230  He says that holding to succession is Smyth's main reason for seeking the union with the Mennonites.  Helwys' first letter to the Mennonite church is undated, but the second can be dated 22 March 1610.231

[/quote]

As you can see, the issue on the thread remains successionism.  The reference to the quote is your se-baptized effusionist, Helwys, writing a critical letter all the way from England trying to stir trouble for his ex-pastor Smyth because of Smyth's growth in believing there actually WAS a legitimate authority to baptize in lineal descent (succession) from a proper church.  IOW, Smyth, one of what you consider a "founding Baptist" actually did believe in succession contrary to your claim otherwise, and that from the words of your idol Helwys himself.  The "sought union with the Mennonites" is not a problem for me because Mennonites = Anabaptists.  You only think you have a point because you believe that Anabaptists are not part of our Baptist heritage.  They are.  Smyth matured into a proper Baptist.  Helwys drew back into his defective baptism and there remained, an improper "Baptist" which is short for "se-baptist" or self-baptized.  If you want to insist that you are of the "se-baptist" sect and to maintain affinity and consistency with your founding father Helwys and have every member of your church baptize him- or herself in a bathtub or swimming pool, that is up to you.  As for me, I will continue to believe with the historic Baptists that baptism is admission into a local church.

Not being an SDA, or having closely followed their history, I don't know if they would accept se-baptism.  But I doubt it.  Most reasonable people wouldn't.  Even Jesus Christ did not Baptize Himself. 

 

[FSSL]

Avoiding the other thread?

 

[FSSL]

Smyth matured into a proper Baptist.

Contrary to EVERY historian and documentation we have. Making up history must be very convenient. But I could imagine difficult to be taken seriously.

 

[PappaBear]

Contrary to EVERY historian and documentation we have.

Really?  You never answered, do you consider Smyth a "founding Baptist"?  Do you agree Helwys' letter indicates Smyth believed in "succession"?

How much more historical documentation could you possibly need?

 

[FSSL]

Back to the OP...

For the successionists, like PappaBear, everything rides on the mode of Baptism by immersion.

He calls the gnostic Paulicians, because they immersed, "Baptists."
Hey! He should call the SDAs "Baptist" because they immerse.

This exposes the deep problems of successionism. You have a scheme that tries to establish the credibility of the Baptists by associating them with all kinds of devils!

 

[rsc2a]

Back to the OP...

For the successionists, like PappaBear, everything rides on the mode of Baptism by immersion.

He calls the gnostic Paulicians, because they immersed, "Baptists."
Hey! He should call the SDAs "Baptist" because they immerse.

This exposes the deep problems of successionism. You have a scheme that tries to establish the credibility of the Baptists by associating them with all kinds of devils!

Mormons practice immersion, right?

 

[rsc2a]

Yes they do. I attended one, when I was a kid. They had a baptistry Baptists would love!

Maybe they are Baptists.

 

[FSSL]

Here is my support for saying that it matters none to the successionists whether people were believers. A New Testament faith is not important. The idea is that one needs to be immersed to be called a "Baptist." Let's consider just ONE of the many groups successionists claim were "Baptists," -- The Paulicians.

The following are ALL successionist historians

Buckland IGNORES other historians and boldly claims:
The northern invasion sweeping over the Roman Empire caused a long age of confusion and change; but there were those widely scattered in the East and the West, who held to the faith and word of Christ, practicing his ordinances and rejecting the commandments of men; and after ages were destined to bring them to light. The rise of the Paulicians shows a biblical faith in the East. Buckland, R. J. W. (1867). Baptist Church History (325). Roger Williams Heritage Archives.

John T. Christian DISAGREES with Buckland and says:
"Many examples might be introduced to show that some of these parties might not be recognized by some Baptists now-a-days. The Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists held diverse opinions, not only from each other, ]but from the teachings of the New Testament[/b][/i]; but they stressed tremendously the purity of the church. It is possible that the Paulicians were Adoptionists." Christian, J. T. A History of the Baptists Together With Some Account of Their Principles and Practices Volumes 1 & 2. Preface.

JM Cramp SPECULATES and whitewashes the Paulicians' problems with a "doesn't-every-group-have-heretics-in-it" speak: When Petrus Siculus sat down to write his history, he was predetermined to blacken the Paulicians to the utmost. Consequently, he maintained that they were Manichæans, notwithstanding the disclaimer of Constantine, their founder; and having taken that position, he was resolved to hold it. We shall not think it worth while to discuss the question. There may have been some among them who still retained a regard to the philosophic speculations with which they were familiar before conversion, and which had for many ages proved very injurious to spiritual Christianity; and that unworthy persons sometimes crept in among them may be readily admitted. That is the fate of all parties. Cramp, J. M. (1871). Baptist History: From the Foundation of the Christian Church to the Close of the Eighteenth Century (60). Roger Williams Heritage Archives. page 60.

So... with all of the diversity among the successionists AND their acknowledgment that the Paulicians were problematic? Why are they so quick to call them "Baptists?"

Thomas Armitage probably set this common idea in motion: "PAULICIAN history has come to us mainly through the persecutors of the Paulicians..." Armitage, T. (1886). A History of the Baptists (234).

This is one of the most popular arguments of the successionist. When a successionist comes across documents that do not support their myth, they claim, "You cannot trust those documents. They were written by enemies of the faith!"

So, think for a moment... the Paulicians were adoptionist, gnostics. WHO were their opponents? The ones who opposed their heresies!

Well... when you have successionist historians DISAGREEING, SPECULATING and ADMITTING about the heresies of the Paulicians, the claim that "enemies wrote bad things" becomes moot!

No wonder the successionist historian cannot be trusted when they get to the Anabaptists! It is like they say to each other... "Phew! We got past the Paulicians (and others), the Anabaptists look pretty good! In fact! They even have "baptist" in their name! Voila!"

 

[Ransom]

For the successionists, like PappaBear, everything rides on the mode of Baptism by immersion.

He calls the gnostic Paulicians, because they immersed, "Baptists."
Hey! He should call the SDAs "Baptist" because they immerse.

The Eastern Orthodox immerse. Three times, in fact, one for each person of the Trinity.

They're, like, triple Baptists.

 

[FSSL]

The Eastern Orthodox immerse. Three times, in fact, one for each person of the Trinity. They're, like, triple Baptists.

Sure! Does PappaBear deny this?

Here is a list of the heresies confirmed about the Paulicians. By the orthodox who opposed them. Do these sound like Baptists? Granted, the Paulicians shed the clergy and sacramental distinctions of the Catholics. But, what about these?

These are the things that the successionists overlook in order to call them "Baptists."

• Dualism was their fundamental principle.2 The good God created the spiritual world; the bad God or demiurge created the sensual world. The former is worshipped by the Paulicians, i.e. the true Christians, the latter by the “Romans” or Catholics.
  
• Contempt of matter. The body is the seat of evil desire, and is itself impure. It holds the divine soul as in a prison.
• Docetism. Christ descended from heaven in an ethereal body, passed through the womb of Mary as through a channel, suffered in appearance, but not in reality, and began the process of redemption of the spirit from the chains of matter.
• The Virgin Mary was not “the mother of God,” and has a purely external connection with Jesus. Peter the Sicilian says, that they did not even allow her a place among the good and virtuous women. The true theotokos is the heavenly Jerusalem, from which Christ came out and to which he returned.
• They rejected the Old Testament as the work of the Demiurge, and the Epistles of Peter. They regarded Peter as a false apostle, because he denied his master, preached Judaism rather than Christianity, was the enemy of Paul (Gal. 2:11) and the pillar of the Catholic hierarchy. They accepted the four Gospels, the Acts, fourteen Epistles of Paul, and the Epistles of James, John and Jude. At a later period, however, they seem to have confined themselves, like Marcion, to the writings of Paul and Luke, adding to them probably the Gospel of John. They claimed also to possess an Epistle to the Laodiceans; but this was probably identical with the Epistle to the Ephesians. Their method of exposition was allegorical.
• Their morals were ascetic. They aimed to emancipate the spirit from the power of the material body, without, however, condemning marriage and the eating of flesh; but the Baanites ran into the opposite extreme of an antinomian abuse of the flesh, and reveled in licentiousness, even incest. In both extremes they resembled the Gnostic sects. According to Photius, the Paulicians were also utterly deficient in veracity, and denied their faith without scruple on the principle that falsehood is justifiable for a good end.

Schaff, P., & Schaff, D. S. (1910). Vol. 4: History of the Christian church (576–578). New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

 

[rsc2a]

For the successionists, like PappaBear, everything rides on the mode of Baptism by immersion.

He calls the gnostic Paulicians, because they immersed, "Baptists."
Hey! He should call the SDAs "Baptist" because they immerse.

The Eastern Orthodox immerse. Three times, in fact, one for each person of the Trinity.

They're, like, triple Baptists.

And they even immerse infants just be be sure.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Back to the OP...

For the successionists, like PappaBear, everything rides on the mode of Baptism by immersion.

He calls the gnostic Paulicians, because they immersed, "Baptists."
Hey! He should call the SDAs "Baptist" because they immerse.

This exposes the deep problems of successionism. You have a scheme that tries to establish the credibility of the Baptists by associating them with all kinds of devils!

Mormons practice immersion, right?

Sure do. I'm reluctant to mention this one but, check out Mormans and their heavenly marriage ceremony. This one is a doozy.