tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post351880798807711006..comments2024-03-28T11:32:15.421-05:00Comments on <center>Istoria Ministries Article Archive</center>: The Importance of Baptism as Christ's OrdinanceWade Burlesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01968442835088008681noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-92005125589485498522007-05-12T22:58:00.000-05:002007-05-12T22:58:00.000-05:00Peter,You said "I thank you for pointing that out....Peter,<BR/><BR/>You said "I thank you for pointing that out..."<BR/><BR/>What else could you be claiming I pointed out other than that "Dr. Dagg is surely not as clear in displaying his view of Baptism as an initiation rite as he is in displaying the interchangability of 'Church Ordinance' and 'Christ's Ordinance.'"? <BR/><BR/>One does not have to quote another to claim that someone else communicated something.<BR/><BR/>In fact, you also seem to be claiming that I believed Dagg did display "his view of Baptism as an initiation rite".<BR/><BR/>Please explain. I have certainly been wrong before in misunderstanding what people have communicated.<BR/><BR/>Thank you<BR/><BR/>BenjiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-14573645245583523032007-05-12T20:58:00.000-05:002007-05-12T20:58:00.000-05:00Dear Benji,Actually I was looking back thinking I ...Dear Benji,<BR/><BR/>Actually I was looking back thinking I might see Mr Bridges' comment since Wade had said he forwarded to him as the "resident expert' for Separate Baptists. Sometimes Mr. Bridges writes these belated messages. Thus the last couple of comments you penned, I found surprising.<BR/><BR/>First, you simply misread what I actually wrote. I was not quoting you when I offered my concession, Benji, about "interchangibility." That is my term, not yours. What you did concede is that Dr. Dagg viewed Ordinances as 'of the Church."<BR/><BR/>Second, Benji, point #3, makes simply no useful sense. From my perspective, you'd have been better served to have let this lie and pick it up another day. As it stands now, the very good conversation we experienced ends with a confused, mangled "correction."<BR/><BR/>I trust for you a graced weekend. With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-90722818408825626912007-05-11T14:25:00.000-05:002007-05-11T14:25:00.000-05:00A little more clarification on point #2 above.What...A little more clarification on point #2 above.<BR/><BR/>What I am trying to get at is that I said nothing about the "interchangeability" that Peter claims I did.<BR/><BR/>BenjiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-84602778429724102312007-05-11T14:15:00.000-05:002007-05-11T14:15:00.000-05:00A few more late thoughts/points.1. The emphasis wa...A few more late thoughts/points.<BR/><BR/>1. The emphasis was mine in the Dr. Thomas White quote above.<BR/><BR/>2. I simply said of Dagg that "he did clearly communicate that Baptism was a church ordinance." Therefore, Peter thanking me for communicating that "Dr. Dagg is surely not as clear in displaying his view of Baptism as an initiation rite as he is in displaying the interchangability of 'Church Ordinance' and 'Christ's Ordinance.'" is without justification since that is not what I communicated.<BR/><BR/>3. Since "Ordinance of the Lord" has a distinctive meaning from "Ordinance of the church", then it seems, to me, that only the first ordinance meaning can be found in the pre-1963 Historical Baptist Confessions I mentioned.<BR/><BR/>BenjiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-56503968212100618852007-04-26T10:21:00.000-05:002007-04-26T10:21:00.000-05:00Dear Phil,I am sorry for the confusion. And I bel...Dear Phil,<BR/><BR/>I am sorry for the confusion. And I believe Benji has clearly communicated the glitch.<BR/><BR/>Grace to you today. With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-62702573849835698012007-04-26T10:19:00.000-05:002007-04-26T10:19:00.000-05:00Benji,Thanks, Benji for the clarification. And I ...Benji,<BR/><BR/>Thanks, Benji for the clarification. And I am sure that Phil is understanding as well.<BR/><BR/>I concede to you Dr. Dagg is surely not as clear in displaying his view of Baptism as an initiation rite as he is in displaying the interchangability of "Church Ordinance" and "Christ's Ordinance." And, I thank you for pointing that out, my brother.<BR/><BR/>Given that, it's been much too long since Dr. Dagg and I had some good fellowship. I think I may go and sit with him over the next few weeks or so and point blank ask: "Professor Dagg: The way you see it, do you think baptism is viewed as an initiatory ceremony or rite in entering the NT Church?"<BR/><BR/>Grace, today, Benji. I am glad we all continue to learn from one another. I am always challenged by your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-83879002639295751152007-04-26T08:47:00.000-05:002007-04-26T08:47:00.000-05:00Peter, Phil and Mary Ann,Allow me to clear away th...Peter, Phil and Mary Ann,<BR/><BR/>Allow me to clear away the confusion (I hope).<BR/><BR/>I have had difficulties posting things on Wade's blog and I had to send my comment to another to post it for me. When I originally sent it I told this person to put my name at the bottom because I made the mistake of not putting it down when I sent it to him. Somehow he made a mistake and did not put it down in the comment section before he published my comment. But there is nothing intentional on both our parts. However, Phil and Mary Ann, I am sorry for my mistake, and Peter, I am sorry for the misunderstanding.<BR/><BR/>If you look at phil and mary ann's name at the bottom, there is a "comma" after it and then a Thank you. I was thanking them for the Dever reference.<BR/><BR/>And Peter thank you for the Dagg quotes. I’m not sure if he saw it as an initiation rite but he did clearly communicate that Baptism was a church ordinance. <BR/><BR/>I hope I have, by God’s grace, tried to approach this subject as one open to learning and both of you have helped me. <BR/><BR/>Thank you. <BR/><BR/>Benji [there I got it:)]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-91158331119523354002007-04-26T08:34:00.000-05:002007-04-26T08:34:00.000-05:00Rex Ray said…DP,I’m sorry I haven’t been completel...Rex Ray said…<BR/>DP,<BR/>I’m sorry I haven’t been completely honest with you. I thought my pastor was you until I asked him about it. (We have discussions.) I thought I was writing to him when I wrote: “It seems James and the elders had no problem with Paul.” (That’s what most people think, but not me.) They didn’t tell they were the ones that told how ‘bad’ Paul was. Now, they had a tiger by the tail: if their congregation stoned Paul, what would Gentile Christians think of them?<BR/><BR/>Birth of Christianity p. 466 “James was the authoritative leader of the Jerusalem mother-church, which was operating two major missions, one to the Jews and one to the pagans. In a combined community, such as that at Antioch, Christian Judaism had to prevail over Christian paganism. Peter and Barnabas presumed that kosher regulations were no longer important. Before James’s intervention, they ate with the pagans like pagans.”<BR/><BR/>In a nutshell, the Jerusalem church was democratic but ‘controlled’ by their leaders. Paul’s churches were democratic, but as soon as he left “false teachers…[with] long letters of recommendation [would] tell them they must obey ever law of God or die.” (2 Corinthians 3: 1, 6)<BR/><BR/>“…have fooled you into thinking they are Christ’s apostles. They make you their slaves and take everything you have, and take advantage of you, and put on airs, and slap you in the face.” (2 Corinthians 11:13, 20) <BR/><BR/>“…Christians—false ones, really—who came to spy on us to see what freedom we enjoyed in Christ, as to whether we obeyed the Jewish laws or not. They tried to get us all tied up in their rules.” (Galatians 2:4, 5) <BR/> <BR/>Wade, I apologize as this is a long way from ‘baptism.’Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-29351594915650276722007-04-26T07:28:00.000-05:002007-04-26T07:28:00.000-05:00PeterSomeone is using my name and attributing stat...Peter<BR/><BR/>Someone is using my name and attributing statements to me that are not mine. The only thing I wrote was a reference to a chapter Mark Dever wrote on April 24. Someone else is using my name. <BR/><BR/>PhilPhil and Mary Annhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17358563103498431178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-63420399106654707772007-04-26T01:16:00.000-05:002007-04-26T01:16:00.000-05:00Dear r.l.vaughnI most wholeheartedly agree, my bro...Dear r.l.vaughn<BR/><BR/>I most wholeheartedly agree, my brother. Hence, the Mullins' commentary was most helpful. Note also the string of quotes from Dr. Dagg.<BR/><BR/>With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-62488322405945412222007-04-26T01:14:00.000-05:002007-04-26T01:14:00.000-05:00Dear Phil & Mary Ann,Greetings. Thank you for the...Dear Phil & Mary Ann,<BR/><BR/>Greetings. Thank you for the quotes. I'd like to respond, if I may.<BR/><BR/>First, Drs. White & Dagg were using "Christian Ordinance" in entirely two different ways. Dr. White was attempting to maintain that Baptism does not and should not reside in the authority of a single Christian to administer. <BR/><BR/>Thus as he explains the heading you cited, (#IV), he speaks of the inappropriateness of a six-year old boy baptizing in his back yard, among other things. Interestingly, Dr. Dagg surely would agree, for he argues that only qualified ministers should baptize. <BR/><BR/>He writes: "From the investigations in the preceding part of this work, we have learned that a candidate has no right to baptize himself, or select his own administrator, without regard to his being duly qualified according to the divine will. The proper administrators are persons called of God to the ministerial office, and introduced into it according to the order established by the apostles. To such persons the candidate was bound to apply; and, if he received the ordinance from any other, it was as if he had selected the administrator at his own will, or had immersed himself."<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Dr. Dagg used "Christian Ordinance" in a general sense as you employ here.<BR/><BR/>In addition, Dagg is most explicit in his insistence that Baptism is both an initiatory rite into the local church as well as uses terms pertaining to Ordinances similarly interchangible as did Dr. Mullins and the early BFM (1925).<BR/><BR/>Dagg writes of the ordinances:<BR/><BR/>"The Lord's supper is properly a church ordinance"<BR/><BR/>"Regarding the Lord's supper as an ordinance committed to the local churches, to be observed by them as such, the question, who are entitled to the privilege of communion, is decided by a simple principle. None are to be admitted but those who can be admitted to the membership of the church." <BR/><BR/>"[Dagg warned to not]corrupt any of Christ's ordinances" and to "keep the ordinances of God as they were delivered." (here speaking of Baptism and The Supper)<BR/><BR/><BR/>"The Lord's supper, in a lively figure, shows forth the death of Christ; and baptism his burial and resurrection. These standing ordinances of the Christian church lead the mind directly to the great Author of our salvation, and to the atoning sacrifice by which that salvation had been effected."<BR/><BR/>"There is, indeed, one passage, and only one, in which the washing of feet is mentioned; and this passage, 1 Tim. v. 10, furnishes decisive proof that it was not practiced as a church ordinance, as were baptism and the Lord's supper."<BR/><BR/>"It is our duty to maintain the ordinances of Christ, and the church order which he has instituted..."<BR/><BR/>"The idea that immersion, as an ordinance of Christ's church, is incompatible with his design that his religion should spread to all nations and climates, is alike disproved by Scripture, and by the facts of history in the spread of Christianity."<BR/><BR/>Actually, there are many more quotes than these that conclusively demonstrate Dr. Dagg's view that Baptism was an initiatory rite and ceremony, the lack of which, barred one from local church membership. Moreover, one may easily observe he used interchangibly "Christ's Ordinances", "Ordinances of God", Ordinances of the Church" for Baptism and the Lord's Supper.<BR/><BR/>Dagg wrote in 1858. This pattern of speaking about the Ordinances is well established Baptist doctrine.<BR/><BR/>Grace. With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-48017640946150806652007-04-25T20:25:00.000-05:002007-04-25T20:25:00.000-05:00Peter,You said “From my understanding, there is NO...Peter,<BR/><BR/>You said “From my understanding, there is NOT A CHANGE AT ALL. Rather it seems it may be those today who, because they may not possess a strong, Local Church motif found in the NT by SOUTHERN BAPTISTS BEFORE US, may be attempting to read their views back into them. Consequently, confusion persists.” (emphasis mine)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Modern SBC man: “IV. Church: Proper baptism must be performed in connection with a true church. BAPTISM IS A CHURCH ORDINANCE AND NOT A CHRISTIAN ORDINANCE. As this is perhaps the least understood view, a necessary discussion of the definition of a true church must also occur.”--Dr. Thomas White [http://guardian-ministries.blogspot.com/]<BR/><BR/><BR/>Before Us SBC man: WATER BAPTISM IS A CHRISTIAN ORDINANCE OF PERPETUAL OBLIGATION-”-John L Dagg [http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol2/all.html] <BR/><BR/><BR/>Thank you for the quote from Mullins. Do you (or anybody else) have any quotes from the Southern Baptists of the 19th century calling baptism a church ordinance? <BR/><BR/>I am open to seeing that kind of language from those older SBC Baptists if it exists.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Phil and Mary Ann,<BR/><BR/>Thank youAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-27639113099983011432007-04-25T17:19:00.000-05:002007-04-25T17:19:00.000-05:00Peter Lumpkins: "[some]...may be attempting to rea...Peter Lumpkins: "[some]...may be attempting to read their views back into them. Consequently, confusion persists."<BR/><BR/>Peter, I agree that we often create problems reading our own concepts back into historical documents. In connection with confessions/articles of faith, it is good to read the writings of contemporary Baptists (contemporary with the confession).R. L. Vaughnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-34579091895878335802007-04-25T14:06:00.000-05:002007-04-25T14:06:00.000-05:00Rex, I respect your opinion, but still can't quite...Rex, <BR/>I respect your opinion, but still can't quite buy into the notion that the early church was ruled by the vote of individual members,<BR/>within separate congregations. <BR/><BR/>But, I have a lot to learn about many things, this matter being one of them.<BR/><BR/>DPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-27160506626805374342007-04-25T13:26:00.000-05:002007-04-25T13:26:00.000-05:00Rex Ray said…DP,“You see, brother, how many thousa...Rex Ray said…<BR/>DP,<BR/>“You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are who have believed, and they are all zealous for the law.” (Acts 21:20) There could have been 20 to 50 thousand in the Jerusalem church. <BR/><BR/>“Our Jewish Christians here at Jerusalem have been told that you are against the laws of Moses, against our Jewish customs, and that you forbid the circumcision of their children. (verse 21) Ut oh, they’ve been told Paul is a bad guy.<BR/><BR/>“Now what can be done? For they will certainly hear that you have come.” (verse 22) Looks like Paul is on a ‘Dead or Alive’ poster.<BR/><BR/>It seems James and the elders had no problem with Paul. If the church had NOT been democratic, their ruling could have removed him out of danger.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-82145439459951825682007-04-25T09:50:00.000-05:002007-04-25T09:50:00.000-05:00Rex, I seems to me that your reply misses the mark...Rex, <BR/><BR/>I seems to me that your reply misses the mark. Where does this proove the church settled on a democratic form of rule? And where is there any support for such a notion in the rest of the NT? I think the form of rule you admire is fairly recent and mostly American in its origin, but you may be able to better instruct me on this. <BR/><BR/>DPAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-63386395709315056512007-04-25T02:07:00.000-05:002007-04-25T02:07:00.000-05:00Rex Ray said…DP,You asked, “Where do we find a NT ...Rex Ray said…<BR/>DP,<BR/>You asked, “Where do we find a NT church with a democratic form of government?”<BR/><BR/>By the actions of the first church counsel at the Jerusalem church in Acts 15, I believe it was democratic by the amount of discussion.<BR/><BR/> “So the apostles and church elders set a further meeting to decide this question.” (verse 6)<BR/><BR/>If it was ‘elder rule’, after this private meeting of the ‘higher ups’, their decision would have been announced and the meeting would have been over.<BR/><BR/>But it wasn’t over. I believe Peter tried to give the decision of the private meeting. “…after long discussion, Peter stood and addressed them as follows…” (verse 7) And after he spoke, it still wasn’t over was it?<BR/><BR/>It wasn’t over even when James stabbed the private meeting in the back. <BR/> <BR/>It was over when the multitude that Peter had shamed into silence had a one hour standing ovation for James for keeping the hated Gentiles from having a free gift of salvation that they had been working for all their lives.<BR/><BR/>Their voices were a majority vote that drowned out any protest or further words from Peter and Paul. The majority had voted and the majority was wrong.<BR/><BR/>Of course the last part is not in the Bible…only a speculation how the roots of Catholics started their ballgame with a homerun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-22395094866787506702007-04-24T22:53:00.000-05:002007-04-24T22:53:00.000-05:00Dear Anonymous,Thank you for asking. But, it reall...Dear Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for asking. But, it really wasn't 100 years lapsing before Southern Baptists "added" anything, to my knowledge, about Baptism. <BR/><BR/>The very first confession of faith voted on by SBs was the 1925 version. Language about Baptism & Lord's Supper being both "Church Ordinances" and "Ordinances of Jesus Christ" are incipient from the beginning of our confessional existence. <BR/><BR/>E.Y. Mullins in his little volume entitled Baptist Beliefs, written in 1912, over a decade before the 1925 BF&M, wrote clearly of "Ordinances of Jesus Christ" and "Church Ordinances." <BR/><BR/>In the final paragraph under the heading "The Church", he writes: "The ordinances of a church are baptism and the Lord's Supper." One paragraph later, under the heading "Baptism", he could note without the least hesitation "Baptism is an ordinance of Jesus Christ establisned for perpetual observance by his people." (pp.67,68 respectively).<BR/><BR/>From my understanding, there is not a change at all. Rather it seems it may be those today who, because they may not possess a strong, Local Church motif found in the NT by Southern Baptists before us, may be attempting to read their views back into them. Consequently, confusion persists.<BR/><BR/>I trust your evening well. With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-91987586916231662652007-04-24T22:33:00.000-05:002007-04-24T22:33:00.000-05:00Hey Debbie,In all honesty, I was reiterating what ...Hey Debbie,<BR/><BR/>In all honesty, I was reiterating what I thought was the view of those Baptists who drew up and accepted the BF&M beginning in 1925. And, given the language, it seems to me they used "Ordinances of Christ" and "Church Ordinances" interchangibly.<BR/><BR/>But to answer your question about my view, I see, similar to the 20thC Baptists, no need to avoid holding simultaneously that the ordinances of Jesus Christ are also ordinances of His Church. <BR/><BR/>Thus when we speak of Ordinances as "of Christ" what do we mean but that they are FROM HIM as to origin and source? He stands behind them and validates them as from God.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, when we speak of Ordinances as "of the Church," we surely mean something distinctive but not to be separated FROM CHRIST its source. Rather, the Church is the steward of them, in the very same sense that she is the steward of the Gospel. Thus, they are ORDAINED by CHRIST as the source & authority, but they BELONG now to the CHURCH to dispense. The Church carries out the ORDAIN-ANCE.<BR/><BR/>And, at that point, it seems to me, is where the real debate begins. The discussion about the Lord's Supper & Baptism is really a discussion about ecclesiology. I am definitively not a Landmarkist, if by that one means to trace the one and only true Church back to the 1st Century. It is neither possible, in my view, nor necessary. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, those folk like myself who find a strong, Local Church motif in the NT have often been mistaken as Landmarkists for the similarities just stated. Good Professors like Drs. Brad Reynolds and Malcolm Yarnell have, even from this community, been mistakenly identified as Landmark as well. And understand, I have respect for Landmarkism as a viable view. I just don't embrace it.<BR/><BR/>That said, Christ gave believer's baptism by immersion to His Church to dispense upon all those who offer a credible, public vow to follow Christ. And who dispenses it but the Local Church of the Lord Jesus? For my part, the debate about baptism was long ago settled.<BR/><BR/>Grace, Debbie. With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-47666224599920876052007-04-24T21:55:00.000-05:002007-04-24T21:55:00.000-05:00If one could gain knowledge about the proper theol...If one could gain knowledge about the proper theology through experience then I would be able to weigh in on this issue. <BR/><BR/>I have been baptized three times:<BR/><BR/>1. As an infant (sprinkling)<BR/><BR/>2. As a teenager by immersion in a church that I later found out believes -- incorectly -- that baptism is necessary for salvation. <BR/><BR/>3. As a teenager by immersion in an SBC church. <BR/><BR/>I am not counting on any combination of these to really count much with God. <BR/><BR/>I think it strange that evidently all sides in this debate acknowledge that a person can be a Baptist but not a Christian or a Christian but not a Baptist and one of the demarcation points is mode of baptism, and who administers it, and for what reason. <BR/><BR/>To me -- as a dumb layman -- this is close to arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. <BR/><BR/>If anyone thinks I should be Baptised a forth time for some reason I guess I'd comply. <BR/><BR/>I'm always pretty complient when it comes to these "arguments between warring baptist camps". I simultaneously agree with both sides of many issues -- because to me virtually all issues are tertiary. <BR/><BR/>I'm so simplistic that to me all three BF&Ms are the "same".RKSOKC66https://www.blogger.com/profile/00169189225205863504noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-16868163590634262132007-04-24T21:19:00.000-05:002007-04-24T21:19:00.000-05:00Peter,You said "What it seems to me you must demon...Peter,<BR/><BR/>You said "What it seems to me you must demonstrate is that, given the only three convention wide confessions we possess and their apparent interchangibility between "Church Ordinances" and "Ordinances of Christ" how Baptists forsook the view that the ordinances were Christ's and not the Church's."<BR/><BR/>What I am wondering is why there was a perceived need to add the language of "church ordinance" to a BF&M well after 100 years of Southern Baptist history.<BR/><BR/>Why was merely communicating that baptism was an ordinance of Christ not seen as sufficient?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-25015552983996871972007-04-24T20:21:00.000-05:002007-04-24T20:21:00.000-05:00Peter: The question I have is, holding your view, ...Peter: The question I have is, holding your view, where does that leave Christ?Debbie Kaufmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17748664558802779885noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-53612258848621035582007-04-24T19:23:00.000-05:002007-04-24T19:23:00.000-05:00Benji, thanks for your explanation on "initiation ...Benji, thanks for your explanation on "initiation rite" and "church ordinance".<BR/><BR/>All, coming back to the thought in the original post -- using the Sandy Creek Baptists as exemplary on the ordinance of baptism -- what do you think about the fact that most of the early Separate Baptists held to nine rites rather than two? Does their acceptance of other ordinances give you pause when it comes to their view of the ordinance of baptism?<BR/><BR/>Just curious. It doesn't bother me much.R. L. Vaughnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10992710377193518029noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-57668981755487860682007-04-24T17:00:00.000-05:002007-04-24T17:00:00.000-05:00Benji,I very well could be mistaken about conversi...Benji,<BR/><BR/>I very well could be mistaken about conversing with you about this particular issue. Yet my concern still is valid, of course. <BR/><BR/>What it seems to me you must demonstrate is that, given the only three convention wide confessions we possess and their apparent interchangibility between "Church Ordinances" and "Ordinances of Christ" how Baptists forsook the view that the ordinances were Christ's and not the Church's. It seems like a pretty doggone big task to me.<BR/><BR/>Grace, Benji. With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19615457.post-83869012280052142982007-04-24T16:53:00.000-05:002007-04-24T16:53:00.000-05:00Pastor Brian, I believe that it would be hard to f...Pastor Brian, <BR/><BR/>I believe that it would be hard to find a reference to Anabaptists around the year 250, as they as part of the Reform movement around 1500.<BR/><BR/>They didn`t believe in baptizing infants, only believers. Because of this, they were severely persecuted.<BR/><BR/>They would probably be persecuted by some hear today, as it was not unusual for the Anabaptists to dance, fall under the power of the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues.davidinfloridahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619061489422219897noreply@blogger.com