Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?

Is "Self-Baptism" legitimate?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    40
Status
Not open for further replies.
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.

That is a bit of a jump your making there brother; surely there are other Baptist ministers who were lawfully baptized.

There were no other "Baptist" ministers - he was the first - according to Bush and Nettles.

-CH

But what about Baptist ministers now?
 
There were no other "Baptist" ministers - he was the first - according to Bush and Nettles.

-CH

And I assume you are aware that this position is controversial, in that many think Bush and Nettles are wrong. Besides, the idea that there can be no legitimate Baptists because there were never any legitimately Baptized Baptists is fallacious: It doesn't account for believers who were baptised in their adulthood who were later called to the ministry.

Mod On:

Nevertheless, let's keep the thread on topic. We don't need a discussion in this thread about whether Baptists can claim legitimacy.
 
Hi:

On another thread I had to pull out my copy of "Baptists and the Bible" in order to look up a reference. This is a publication of the Southern Baptist Founders ministry and was written by two prominent Founders: L. Russ Bush, and Tom J. Nettles. The Book details the beginnings of the modern-day Baptist movement.

The original founder of the Baptists, according to Bush and Nettles, was a man named John Smyth. Because there was no one who had the authority to baptize, including himself, he consequently baptized himself,

In their own words:

This famous baptism is known to historians as Smyth's "se-baptism" (baptism of one's self). The mode of baptism used in this case was the pouring of water on the head, pg. 14.
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.

One does not need to be baptized in order to be saved. God's saving grace is given to all of the Elect.

Blessings,

-CH

Sorry I have not responded in the last baptism thread yet. I will. I am not able to spend much time on the net right now but I promise I will respond to your last post in our last discussion. I have not read Nettle's. I haven't read anything by him as a matter of fact. I just read about John Smyth the other day.

In 'A History of the Baptists by Torbet, on page 35 he discusses John Smyth and what you are talking about. It reports that he became an anabaptist by the influence of Mennonites. It is then reported that he was not ready to turn to the Mennonite theologically so he did baptise himself by affusion and then baptised the rest of his congregation which was about 40. It is then said that it was not long before he reached the conclusion that private baptism was an error and he told his congregation that he had acted to hastily in baptizing himself and them. He and his group then petitioned the Mennonites, confessing their error in baptizing themselves and requested membership in the Mennonite Church.
ref...A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet. Judson Press. It has a forward by Kenneth Scott Latourette.

As I noted before in the other thread that it is contested that the 1640 Particular Baptists are not of this mans variety. They were not anabaptists nor were they separatists as the anabaptists were.


I do have one more thing to add to this thread.

God sure did put Peter into quite a quandary by making him go to Cornelius' house to baptise him in Acts chapter 10. And it may also be noted that God sent Ananias to Paul. I am not sure if Ananias was an Elder but the scriptures do say he was a devout man and he was a disciple. These Great men who needed to be baptized had people sent to them by God's providence to Baptise them. They were not self baptized even though they were great men. And even John Smyth who was referenced quickly saw his error.
 
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.

That is a bit of a jump your making there brother; surely there are other Baptist ministers who were lawfully baptized.

There were no other "Baptist" ministers - he was the first - according to Bush and Nettles.

-CH

I don't know what you are reading but the above proves he was not the first to become a credo. The Mennonites influenced him on this position. And actually Ulrich Zwingli held to credo position for a brief period with other anabaptists. He recanted. John Smyth is not the first.
 
victorbravo;330147[COLOR="Red" said:
Mod On[/COLOR]:

Nevertheless, let's keep the thread on topic. We don't need a discussion in this thread about whether Baptists can claim legitimacy.

Moderator Reconsideration

CH, I'm sorry about my heavy-handed "decree". I think the discussion about Baptist history is fine, even the topic you introduced after the thread began. I would have preferred it to be introduced in a more transparent manner, but the subject of Baptist history is not off-limits as far as I'm concerned. (Others may differ).

My concern is to balance recognition of the allowed Confessions on the board with a decent discussion. Nothing more.
 
Greetings:

It is true that the Mennonites were prior to John Smyth, and Bush and Nettles do, in fact, point this out. Bush and Nettles:

What eventually became the first modern Baptist church was established in Amsterdam in 1609 as a result of the meeting of a group of English Separatists with the Dutch Anabaptists, the Mennonites. The leader of this group of pioneering individuals was John Smyth, pg. 12.
The "modern Baptist" views concerning Baptism for Believers only was unknown in history prior to the late 1500's. There was no one "qualified" to Baptize in this mode, and, thus they had to re-baptize themselves to begin with.

The Baptist formula is "Believer's Only" this type of Baptism is no where found in the Baptism formulas of those who are even baptized when they were not infants during the Reformation. Those who started the practice, like John Smyth, were not qualified to do so. Paedo-Baptists will baptize an adult if he/she comes to faith and was not baptized as an infant.

That Zwingli held to Believer's Only does not qualify him to baptize Believer's only when he himself was not so "properly" baptized. The conundrum is on the part of the Baptist Only position.

The Mennonites (Anabaptists) actually did start out Baptizing themselves.The Mennonites trace their history to Felix Manz and Conrad Grebel. Both men never finished their education nor did they ever receive ordination. It was Felix Manz who "Believer Only Baptized" Conrad Grebel, and Grebel who continued the practice. Manz did this not only contrary to the Word of God, but, also in defiance of an edict from the Council of Zurich. Earlier Manz and Zwingli had debated on the subject of infant baptism, and the Council declared Zwingli the victor, and ordered all unbaptized infants to be baptized within 8 days.

From the beginning the "Believer's Baptist Only" movement has defied Scripture by using "Self-Baptism" and they defied lawful government. It would follow that the descendents of the "Believer's Baptist Only" are not baptized in a legitimate fashion.

Baptism does not save a person, and a person can live his whole life without being baptized and go to heaven.

Blessings,

-CH
 
Hi:

On another thread I had to pull out my copy of "Baptists and the Bible" in order to look up a reference. This is a publication of the Southern Baptist Founders ministry and was written by two prominent Founders: L. Russ Bush, and Tom J. Nettles. The Book details the beginnings of the modern-day Baptist movement.

The original founder of the Baptists, according to Bush and Nettles, was a man named John Smyth. Because there was no one who had the authority to baptize, including himself, he consequently baptized himself,

In their own words:

This famous baptism is known to historians as Smyth's "se-baptism" (baptism of one's self). The mode of baptism used in this case was the pouring of water on the head, pg. 14.
If Smyth considered that he could baptize Believer's only, then he would have done so without baptizing himself. It seems to me that Smyth's baptism was illegitimate, and, concurrently, all other "Believer Only Baptisms" as well up to today.

One does not need to be baptized in order to be saved. God's saving grace is given to all of the Elect.

Blessings,

-CH

Sorry I have not responded in the last baptism thread yet. I will. I am not able to spend much time on the net right now but I promise I will respond to your last post in our last discussion. I have not read Nettle's. I haven't read anything by him as a matter of fact. I just read about John Smyth the other day.

In 'A History of the Baptists by Torbet, on page 35 he discusses John Smyth and what you are talking about. It reports that he became an anabaptist by the influence of Mennonites. It is then reported that he was not ready to turn to the Mennonite theologically so he did baptise himself by affusion and then baptised the rest of his congregation which was about 40. It is then said that it was not long before he reached the conclusion that private baptism was an error and he told his congregation that he had acted to hastily in baptizing himself and them. He and his group then petitioned the Mennonites, confessing their error in baptizing themselves and requested membership in the Mennonite Church.
ref...A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet. Judson Press. It has a forward by Kenneth Scott Latourette.

As I noted before in the other thread that it is contested that the 1640 Particular Baptists are not of this mans variety. They were not anabaptists nor were they separatists as the anabaptists were.


I do have one more thing to add to this thread.

God sure did put Peter into quite a quandary by making him go to Cornelius' house to baptise him in Acts chapter 10. And it may also be noted that God sent Ananias to Paul. I am not sure if Ananias was an Elder but the scriptures do say he was a devout man and he was a disciple. These Great men who needed to be baptized had people sent to them by God's providence to Baptise them. They were not self baptized even though they were great men. And even John Smyth who was referenced quickly saw his error.

Hi Martin:

That is interesting, and I thank you for that. However, the Mennonites had about as much authority to baptize as did John Smyth had of doing it himself. Neither Smyth nor the Mennonites had proper justification to baptize in the fashion that they did.

Blessings,

-Rob
 
Greetings:


The "modern Baptist" views concerning Baptism for Believers only was unknown in history prior to the late 1500's. There was no one "qualified" to Baptize in this mode, and, thus they had to re-baptize themselves to begin with.

The Baptist formula is "Believer's Only" this type of Baptism is no where found in the Baptism formulas of those who are even baptized when they were not infants during the Reformation. Those who started the practice, like John Smyth, were not qualified to do so. Paedo-Baptists will baptize an adult if he/she comes to faith and was not baptized as an infant.

That Zwingli held to Believer's Only does not qualify him to baptize Believer's only when he himself was not so "properly" baptized. The conundrum is on the part of the Baptist Only position.

The Mennonites (Anabaptists) actually did start out Baptizing themselves.The Mennonites trace their history to Felix Manz and Conrad Grebel. Both men never finished their education nor did they ever receive ordination. It was Felix Manz who "Believer Only Baptized" Conrad Grebel, and Grebel who continued the practice. Manz did this not only contrary to the Word of God, but, also in defiance of an edict from the Council of Zurich. Earlier Manz and Zwingli had debated on the subject of infant baptism, and the Council declared Zwingli the victor, and ordered all unbaptized infants to be baptized within 8 days.

From the beginning the "Believer's Baptist Only" movement has defied Scripture by using "Self-Baptism" and they defied lawful government. It would follow that the descendents of the "Believer's Baptist Only" are not baptized in a legitimate fashion.

Baptism does not save a person, and a person can live his whole life without being baptized and go to heaven.

Blessings,

-CH
It would follow that the descendents of the "Believer's Baptist Only" are not baptized in a legitimate fashion.


And I would contest that there are many on this board who may not be baptized legitimately. What makes baptism legitimate? There are varying views of this on this board. Those baptized in the Roman Religion are considered to be legitimately baptized while there are some who do not think so. I am one of those, but I think one needs to repent and be able to be cognizant of certain things first before baptism is valid. At this point I am wondering... Did John the Baptist need to be baptized? Or did any of the Apostles need to be baptised before they could be given the commission to baptise. I am not advocating self baptism. But inquiring minds are leading to these questions.

And there are many who would disagree with you that credo-baptism had no foot in history before the 1500s. I am not sure to what extent I would agree with them but they are there.

Getting back to the Particular Baptists let me show you some things written in Torbets book.

Baptists shared with Lutherans, Zwinglians, and Calvinists, their protest against the totalitarianism of the papacy and their zeal to recover the spirituality of the Church. They were Calvinists standing within the covenant theology expressed in the Westminster (putting aside paedo baptism). On the other hand, the General Baptist (which were mostly pelagian) were originally English separatists or Puritans who broke with the Church of England, which they regarded as a false church, perverted by error. Their sectarian spirit and point of view was carried over into their church life. On the other hand the Particular Baptists arose out of a non-Separatist independency. They were Congregational in polity but more ecumenical in spirit. They did not renounce the Church of England as being entirely corrupt. They sought to maintain some bond of unity between themselves and Christians of other Communions. Among these Particular Baptists were those who were willing to admit into its membership, without rebaptism, those of other communions.

The above is a summary I did taken from Torbets History of the Baptists.

I would disagree with the rebaptism part. I do not believe baptism saves either, but I do think it should be practised as per the scriptures and Apostles. I don't think it is Historically accurate to say that covenantal paedo-baptism was a practice of the Early church and scriptures. But we have been through this before when we discussed Baptism in the Early Church. I still understand that paedo-baptism was practiced a few centuries later because of the attachment the early church of that period put between the forgiveness of sin and baptism, thus leading to their decision to baptise infants based upon the degree of necessity (the death bed), as it is mentioned in the early fathers. An unbaptized person could not experience the forgiveness of sin without baptism in their thought. And I think you know this is true of the early church. We have discussed this before also.

Well enough rambling for now.

Was John the Baptist Baptised? I don't think he needed to be to be commissioned to go Baptise. And I am not so sure the Apostles needed to be to be commissioned either. Just my thoughts.
 
If I remember corectly didn't at least some early English Baptists "baptise" themselves? In the absence of anyone else who had been "properly" baptised to perform their (re)baptism did not some immerse themselves, after being convinced of this "doctrine"?
 
Hi:

Is "Self-Baptism" Scripturally legitimate?

Why or Why Not?

Not being rude, but why is this even in question?

Ever seen The Apostle? It's a movie but it's pretty representative of many Pentecostals and Charismatics who might not baptize themselves but they certainly annoint themselves for ministry.

I thought of this movie when I saw the thread, and of the scene where Duvall baptizes himself in the river.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top