The Unique Baptists

When people consider the Baptists many suppose that they are diverse simply in their baptism.  And in this they are quite correct. However, they may not fully appreciate just how correct they are.  Yes, Baptists are about baptism.  They stand apart from every other religious body in the world, and this is due to their baptism.  This difference is not just in manner but in how it exhibits great and important principles.  Their baptism is in stark contrast to the Roman Church, its daughters: Pedobaptist Churches and Protestant Churches—which are still evolving.  The issue of baptism affects nearly every doctrine of the New Testament Church.  The errors of baptism have stained nearly all doctrines and the Gospel in general.

It will be seen that the baptism of the Baptists differs from others in its mode, candidates, authority, application, and purpose.  The principle drive behind the doctrine of baptism for the Baptists is their love of truth and resolute desire to comply with the commands and precepts of the Word of God.  Their practice of baptism exalts the Word of God.  This is not just noble rhetoric, for they take their practice directly from God’s Word and disdain the teachings of men and traditions.  By their appeal to scripture only they express a reverence of it and give example for all others.  The Bible only is the standard, the authority and reigns supreme.  Because of this Baptists have been charged with bible-idolatry, an unreasonable worshipping of the Word of God.  This indictment came from one who could not sustain his beliefs from scripture, but rather from his life’s experience.

Surely, this question about baptism is not insignificant, seeing it involves such great consequences!  If the magnitude of a thing is to be judged by its results, it is certain that the question of baptism is one of vast importance.

From the time of the first heresies in the second century until the appearance of the first reformers, Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin, there have always existed dissenting churches.  The first heresy of significance was the elevation of the office of bishop.  Soon after this deviation came the error of baptismal regeneration (salvation), which led to the consequence of the development of infant baptism and later sprinkling/pouring.  Fundamental churches were notable for their opposition to churches who had fallen from apostolic teachings.  They baptized all who joined them, regardless of any past “baptism” by the established churches. (By established churches, it is meant the State-Churches, churches who rule with civil authority and power.)  They rejected the right of apostate churches to baptize.  Their adversaries nicknamed them “Anabaptists,” meaning re-baptizers.  This name was considered as a term of derision, for the Anabaptists themselves never considered their baptism as any duplication of what had been done, but rather their baptism was fresh.

When the churches called Catholic in the fourth century began to baptize into their membership those without faith, not born of the Spirit, their spirituality was exchanged for worldliness.  Faith before baptism and church membership was set aside.  Because of this she introduced traitors into her body, which betrayed her into the hands of her enemies.  In a sense they had made the Kingdom of God to be of this world.  They had fallen to the worst degree, so much so that they violently turned against what they had once been.

There could be no union between the Anabaptists and the rest, for from the first they were opposites and so they remain.  Their actions condemned the legitimacy of those fallen churches and a rejection of their right to administer the church ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  In the judgment of the Anabaptists, these irregular churches had long ceased to be churches of the New Testament.

It was a small step from the error of salvation by baptism to infant baptism.  What infant baptism developed was a church being further filled with un-regenerated members.  This culminates in making those churches to be predominately spiritually and morally unclean.  It is a policy of these churches that they never dismiss any who have been baptized as infants no matter how immoral or criminal they may become in later life.  They do at times anathematize for heresy, but rarely for immorality, which breaches policy.  Nor do they acknowledge any right of these people to ever be baptized again.  They universally condemn any second baptism and those who administer it, for it is a condemnation of the first baptism.

Infant baptism involves no freedom of will by the subject.  Infants express no sentiment about it.  Infants are “christened” to belong to Christ and to the Church.  In a very real sense they become property of that Church.  This is a lifelong bondage to the hierarchy of men, under their control and demand.  Furthermore, the members of the church itself have no voice as to who is admitted into their ranks or receives baptism.

To protect this departure from the scriptures two things are necessary.  First is to keep the truth from the people and second is to substitute deception for the truth.  The first task was done by a policy that people were not to read God’s Word, and later condemning the printing and circulation of bibles in the common tongue of the people.  It was at times criminal to have a personal possession of the Bible.  The second step was the removal of the right of their congregations to make decisions for themselves.  Thus, a church hierarchy was established, and it ruled the church with an iron fist.  This body of men established themselves to be supreme authority over the church and have the final and only say in the affairs of the church.

These policies of denial of Scripture and obscuring the truth served to enslave men’s conscience, eliminate freedom and the liberty of judgment and practice.  It became an oppressive society, not only internally but also externally.  Since these churches later established themselves as state churches to dissent from them and not to allow infants to be baptized were once considered treasonous and punishable by the secular powers, which they controlled.  All this was done in order to sustain an error and preserve their own survival.  Truth, when known, would tear down their mighty fortresses of heresies and evil.

In contrast the Baptists have always insisted on only baptizing the repentant who, by their own volition, seek baptism.  None are forced.  This freedom is often called “Believer’s Baptism.”  Not only do they apply this liberty to the practice of baptism, but also in every sphere of human conscience, including civil.  Never will there be found a Baptist who would deny the word of God to others or their right to examine that word openly, freely, and with liberty of conscience.  This is the inalienable liberty of all men in their right to choose for themselves and act without coercion against conscience.

When it comes to the Baptists, every question, every debate is settled with the reply, “What sayeth the Word?”  It is to the Bible they turn and not to priest, bishop, pope, tradition, synods, or ruling bodies.  This is their stand on baptism; “What sayeth the Word.”  While others seek to obscure, deny, mistranslate, turn aside the Word of God, the Baptists welcome and encourage the purity of God’s word, for they acknowledge it as the only authority in spiritual matters.  When asked to justify their beliefs, the Pedobaptists call upon tradition, the teachings of the “Fathers,” or the high authority of their denomination head: Pope, President, Archbishop, etc.  They substitute the commandments of men for those of God and make His word of none effect.  The Baptists say, show us in the Word the doctrine of infant baptism and we will do it.  The Baptists say, show us in the word where we are to sprinkle and we will do it.  Show us in the word to receive and maintain the wicked and evil and the involuntary into the church and we will do it.  No, far from any support in the Gospel all these things are spoken against.  And that is why the Baptist does what he does.

The baptism of the Baptists also affects the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper.  They will not allow any but their own members to the table.  This is known as closed communion.  For this they are accused of bigotry, narrow-mindedness, and the cruel charge of being loveless.  But many of the Pedobaptists also have closed communion.  In their articles they state that before any are elevated to the status of qualifying for communion they must pass certain tests.  Some insist that they complete a catechism or recite their creeds, the Lord’s Prayer, the Ten Commandments and answer other questions as in a Short Catechism.  Thus it is perceived that all that is necessary is a good memory in order to be confirmed as a member of that church.  Others add to this that they must have a good personal character.  None of this stipulates a converted soul who has repented of sin and embraced the salvation of God.  This is a kind of “closed communion” that the Baptists have never practiced.  Baptists insist that the individual be saved, baptized, and their conduct be moral and harmonious with the righteousness taught in the Bible.  Only the local individual church can be the judge of these requirements.  Thus they restrict communion to her members only.

Baptism for the Baptists bolsters the practice of discipline.  Baptists’ baptism and discipline only involves the church internally.  This discipline determines who may be initiated and maintained in their membership.  This stands in contrast to the churches which practice no discipline.  It is a quirk of State Churches that they go undisciplined internally and yet exacts the harshest of discipline on those without.  It is found that corruption reigns in such churches at every level.  Their priests, bishops, pastors are often engaged in the grossest of crimes.  At the present day the Roman Catholic Church has been exposed of child molestation among her priests.  None have been excommunicated; they are still kept within her ranks.  Their officials hardly say a word of condemnation against those found guilty.  The crime is condemned but the criminal is not.

Baptists find no redeeming quality of baptism for the un-regenerated person, whether adult or infant.  For them baptism does not save, extend grace, is not a sacrament, nor does it expunge any “original sin.”  Baptist’s baptism is an outward mark of the willingness of the redeemed to submit to Christ and His authority and serve Him.  This submission indicates that they have received Christ as savoir and henceforth He is Lord and Master.  They have put on Christ and publicly identified with Him and His Church.  This is a bold step for many, since it puts them at times in jeopardy of persecution, the loss of friends, worldly esteem and popularity.

Baptism for the Baptists also distinguishes their congregations as democratic.  They are autonomous bodies of Christ; every assembly is independent. They have no head except Christ.  They have no governing body over them or earthly master.  They collectively make the decision as to who is to receive their baptism as opposed to tradition or rulers of the church.  Baptists are self-determining. They elect and dismiss their own pastors and deacons.  The idea of one man presiding over the affairs of the church is appalling to them, for to recognize any man as head means a surrender of liberty and a capitulation of loyalty to that man.

Others may follow some of the Baptists’ doctrines but that does not make them Baptist, nor give them any heritage with the ancient apostolic church.  New Testament church government is not Episcopal, hierarchical, Presbyterian, or conventionalism.  One such example of fallacious church government is that of the Presbyterians:

“Chapter XXX, Of Church Censures

1. The Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, has therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate.
2. To these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed; by virtue whereof, they have power, respectively, to retain, and remit sins; to shut that kingdom against the impenitent, both by the Word, and censures; and to open it unto penitent sinners, by the ministry of the Gospel; and by absolution from censures, as occasion shall require.”
   *From the Presbyterian Westminster Confession chpt. XXX sec. 1 & 2.

In the area of discipleship the Baptists also set themselves apart.  Their baptism defines the nature of a disciple of Christ as one who follows Christ and not simply one who has been brought to Christ.  The true disciple has denied himself (Luke 14:25-33).  The Church is made of disciples, and yet infants baptized into the Pedobaptist Churches are declared as disciples.  The Pedobaptists say disciples are made by virtue of baptism only; no acknowledgement of commitment is given or required.  They teach that whether they (the baptized) put their name down or another has put it down for them; their names are forever in the record of the church.  This membership, this type of discipleship, makes no demand on regeneration or conduct.  Scriptures describe church members as disciples, a spiritual seed, lively stones, saints, sincere believers; they have passed from death unto life.  Baptists receive none but the professed converts, and when these walk disorderly, they withdraw themselves from them.

As mentioned, Baptists have never forced baptism on any.  In this they stand for religious liberty.  They use no carnal, or earthly weapons, or Magistrates in their cause but merely adhere to the Word of God and urge all others to do the same.  In this they have stood alone for sixteen centuries.

Baptists hold that the authority to baptize was given exclusively to the church and not to any individuals.  They believe that the local church as a body determines the qualifications and approves the baptismal process.  As previously stated, this feature reveals the form of ecclesiastical government of the Baptist church; it is democratic.  Moreover, it can be seen that to them the nature of the church is local, for no invisible, never-assembled, universal church could ever conduct business by election of vote.  In her democracy each and every member, including her officers (pastor and deacons), has an equal standing in the affairs of the church (there is no hierarchy).  Coincidently, as the church receives members by vote so also by vote they remove members.  At times church discipline is exercised in separating members.  Christ has designated the church as the supreme and final arbitrator (Matt. 18:15-17) in such cases.  It is the church as a whole and not a council of bishops or elders who judge the unruly (I Cor. 5).

By the manner and method of Baptist baptism they hold to the principle of precise biblical translations.  The amazing practice of so many translators and translations of the bible demonstrate a certain subterfuge in their work.  There are only rare translations in any language where the word “baptzio” has been translated.  Universally the Protestant and Catholic translators have left the word un-translated and merely transliterated the word, as in the case of English “baptize.”  This is not an English word.  When non-English speaking people read their bible in their native tongue they do not understand the word (baptize) and need someone to explain it, and this person may explain it to suit his own views.  Why is this?  For the simple reason of veiling the clear truth.  It keeps the “sprinkler’s” error believable, to propagate a human dogma by which they have violated the word of God.  This has also been done with the word “Church,” which should be translated “assembly,” or such like.  In the Spanish bible produced by the American Bible Society in the 1800’s the original Greek word “repentance” had been translated as “to do penance.”  If it is thought that only the Catholics and the Established Reformed Churches are guilty of this, I refer the reader to I Cor. 12:13.  Here the Greek word “en” is translated “by,” whereas the correct English preposition is “in,” there is no grammatical justification to force another meaning to it.  This one verse is used as the proof text of the Protestants who believe in the universal church, for they say all have been baptized into one body by the Holy Spirit.  The correct translation is: “For in one spirit we all into one body have been immersed.”  Scarcely will they admit the word should be “in” but rather consistently insist that the word may be properly be translated “by.”  By this one word they have distorted both the meaning of the text and the doctrine of the nature of the church.

Where are they who stand with the Baptists?  Who is it that does not find fault with them or offers no criticism against them?  Some may agree on some points but with the whole they find fault.  Not even all who are called Baptist are united or in agreement with the above points.  Some Baptists claim they are protestant, others deny this of themselves.  The Reformed Churches unashamedly reject Scripture for tradition, the “faith of the fathers.”  Protestants, such as Martin Luther, cry out “Scripture Only,” and then to refute it when it denies their cause (such as baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, confession for absolution to and from a man).  They love the Word of God until it embarrasses them, then they deal faithlessly with it.

When we speak of Baptists, we are not speaking of the protestant Baptists of seventeenth century origin (The General and Particular Baptist of London).  Nor do we speak of “reformed” Baptists of today who have adopted a protestant position.  No, it is the Baptists with a heritage and lineage before all other denominations of which we speak.  This heritage and succession extends back to Christ Himself before Pentecost.  These unique Baptists reject any notion that they are protestant.  Additionally, they reject the doctrinal sentiment that all the redeemed are in the Church.  They maintain that the nature of the Church is exclusively a local body of Christ, not universal or invisible.  Only such a church is able to govern itself and administer the ordinances.

The true Baptist inquiry is, “What saith the Word?”  This makes the Baptists unique.  For centuries prior to the Reformation the Lord’s Church has stood alone in this battle for the truth.  Mostly, they suffered horribly for it.  Are there any others who can claim this heritage?  No, many have been the persecutors.  To this day every stance of the Baptists is assailed.  From the beginning Baptists have differed from all others and remain so.  There can be no union between the Baptists and the rest, for from the first they were opposites and so they remain.  They are unique among all the ecclesiastical bodies of the world.

If these words and thoughts seem to be harsh and over critical it is not intentional.  Whenever comparisons are made it is best to be direct and forthright with the facts. If Baptists are unique, comparisons must be made.  This is not meant to be an attack upon others but to be a statement of why we are different.  All that we are is due to our love; our love of Christ, His word, and compassion for all men.

Return Home