When Baptists Turn Catholic

WHEN BAPTISTS TURN CATHOLIC

The sin of denominationalism always degenerates into bishops or denominational Diotrephes, who seek to authorize, control, or permit everything that takes place. Denominational churches and schools are always looking for ways to control missionaries, preachers, and other churches. The greatest fear of Denominationalists is scriptural opposition, dissent, and defection from their control. The "link chain" church succession theory (Certain Landmarkers) cannot be proven nor even verified to any reasonable satisfaction, due to history not being an infallible nor an inerrant measuring stick. Churches, who run to Lexington Kentucky (Landmark Baptist Vatican), for their authority, have fallen for a popish hoax, mimicking the Catholics. Most ancestor churches (even the church at Babylon --1 Pet. 5:14), the seven churches of Revelation, the Corinthian church, and their descendant churches have had and do have many irregularities and corruption in their line down through church history. They have become, in some cases, entirely apostate. Even the Catholic has a pedigree of sorts. Still, a Baptist church, not having any PROVEN connection, transmitted authority, nor succession from a certain link-chain of churches may still be a legitimate New Testament church. Even link- chain churches can only demonstrate a real pedigree and authenticity by demonstrating their scriptural faith and practice and not merely historical succession. Suppose a church could trace itself back to the first century; it still could not prove that it or its ancestor churches had all been good ones or have always been in a line that was free from apostasy, corruption, and irregularities. Should Independent Baptists be forced to have dual authorities like the Roman Catholics? Should we value history and tradition on a greater or equal plane with the scriptures? We say "NO!" to such Catholic nonsense.

Authority to Baptize from Where? The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him? But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We cannot tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. -- Mark 11:29-33 (Matt. 21:23-27) We have no quarrel with the practice of refusing alien baptisms or of mother churches planting infant churches; we're all for it. We do not endorse freelance soul winning that does not result in body-winning (water baptisms and church membership). Still, such a practice is not a thermometer to determine whether or not a church or its baptism is legitimate. The Holy Spirit (not a church) calls men (Acts 20:28), who must answer to the scriptures and their Lord. It is foolish to demand that a man of God seek authority to do what he has already been authorized, called, and commanded to do by the Scriptures/Holy Spirit, when the brethren’s stamp of approval will do. Now, the checks and balances are such that local churches may or may not recognize, show approval, or recommend a man's calling or church or baptism. That is a church's prerogative (Matt 18). God called Baptist preachers and missionaries have scriptural authority (not "Landmarker" authority). They are commanded to baptize converts and start churches, church authority or no. When there is enough, baptized material, they may organize them together (or the converts may organize themselves) into an N. T. church, having all the rights and privileges and authority of an N.T. church (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). Local church authority cannot be delegated to another church any more than it can be delegated to an internal committee. God called Baptist missionaries do not carry any special transmitted/transferable church authority—only Bible authority and instructions. Nevertheless, shouldn't a missionary be a baptized member of a New Testament Baptist church? Yes, indeed, but wait a minute! What if his church does not have an unbroken chain of transmitted church authority and succession? Are the churches that he starts valid either way? Certain "Landmarkers" would say, "No!," to the first proposition and “Yes!” to the second. We insist that these converts and churches are valid—if their doctrine and practice are scriptural. If we say that salvation or baptism is of men and not heaven, we are in real trouble. Let us go one step further. Suppose a man reads a tract, on the mission field, and is saved and is called to preach. Could he preach to others, baptize, and organize them into a scriptural, New Testament, Baptist church and then allow that church to baptize him? Some "Landmarkers" would say, "No!", Even though John the Baptist was never baptized and Jesus used John’s baptized material to build HIS (MY) church. We know of no strict Baptists, today, who do not recognize John's baptism to be as valid as their baptism and identical to it. However, many Interdenominational Baptists, hyperdispensational Baptists, and Interdenominationalists erroneously disown John's baptism as non-Christian and some even invalidate its legitimacy in this dispensation of grace. So, we have two extremes here with which to deal. Now, a local N.T. Baptist church is not obligated to recognize ANY church nor its baptism, whether Baptist, Interdenominational, Nondenominational, or Protestant. A local N.T. Baptist church has the right to bind and loose (Matt. 16:19; 18:18), for its own protection, anything that it deems necessary within the confines of the scripture. It has the right to accept and refuse members. It has the right to baptize and refuse baptisms. It has a right to refuse the Lord's table and fellowship. It has the right to ordain or refuse ordination. It has a right to accept, refuse, and reject pastors and missionaries. The church at Antioch had the perfect right to be suspicious of Paul and his baptism and to refuse him membership (Acts 9:26). They also had the right to change their decision (Acts 9:27). Local church authority is an authority beginning with itself and ending within its own membership and affairs. It exercises no authority— WITHOUT (1 Cor. 5:12). Any thinking to the contrary is not local church or Bible thinking but rather is Catholic thinking. Should churches evangelize and plant churches? Of course! Do they have authority over those churches? Absolutely not! Can they transmit or transfer authority to another church? No! Initiatory, water baptisms into a local body/church are scriptural and valid, if they are so specified. Still, baptisms that provide material to create new Baptist churches as with the non baptized John the Baptist’s baptized material (which Christ's used to build His church) are equally valid and legitimate (i.e., missionary baptisms). What about the authority to baptize, where there are no churches? God called men of God, should work out of scriptural, New Testament, and local Baptist churches (where possible). They already have the command, the commission, the obligation, the duty, and the authority to evangelize and start scriptural churches anywhere and everywhere. Where there is a command and commission, there is the authority. It is inconsistent to reckon the converts' salvation, wrought by the efforts of non-link chain churches, as genuine and then turn around and pronounce the resulting churches and their baptisms illegitimate? Either all the results of the commission are valid or none are valid. That does not mean that an N.T. church has to recognize, accept, nor recommend them or any freelance or apostate church or individual. The local church was given the commission and ITS inherent imbedded authority. It can be easily proven that the New Testament church practice was to send out preachers and missionaries, as are recorded in the book of Acts. Still, the New Testament is replete with accounts of churches and baptisms, which were not afforded the luxury of the so called invisible, transmitted church or denominational authority (which is no authority at all). In all the following examples, certain "Landmarkers" are helpless to produce one case of transmitted, transferred, or delegated authority to baptize (without appealing to the silence of scriptures). Still, church approval and recommendation of God called ministries can be easily shown and proven to be the practice in the Bible. Nevertheless, no churches have the ex-cathedra power to forbid or suppress anyone, who witnesses, baptizes, and/or starts churches nor invalidate the results.

Philip's Desert Ministry And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza . . . Philip . . . preached unto him Jesus . . . and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more . . . -- Acts 8:26-39 The persecuted Jerusalem church was scattered abroad with the exception of the apostles. They were reduced from thousands to a dozen very quickly. Those that were scattered didn't have much chance to pack their suitcases let alone obtain authority. Needless to say, they all went preaching and baptizing. The Holy Spirit and not the church sent Philip to Samaria, and He alone sent him to the Gaza desert without any church approval. Philip the deacon baptized the Samaritan converts and his sole desert convert without any record of a vote or an ordination or transmitted, transferred, or delegated church authority. Philip provided the first building material for the First Ethiopian Baptist church and never saw the fellow again. There is no record of the Jerusalem church knowing or authorizing any of it. Ananas Damascus Ministry Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus . . .hath sent me [not the church hath sent me]. . . And immediately . . . he . . . was baptized. -- Acts 9:17, 18 There is no indication that "a certain disciple," Ananias (Acts 9:1-18), was ever ordained or even a preacher or that there was even a church in Damascus at the time. The Jerusalem church was scattered, possibly accounting for Ananias being in Damascus. He went to Saul in the house by himself, and he did not receive authority to baptize Paul from anyone but the Lord Jesus. In fact, God had to talk him into doing it. Paul wasn't even one of his converts, for he was converted and called by the Lord on the Damascus road before he was ever baptized. It seems that Ananias and Paul were charter members of the First Baptist church of Damascus. After Paul had to get out of town quickly, he was refused church membership by the First Baptist church of Jerusalem (Acts 9:26) and then was later accepted (Acts 9:27), after he was recommended by Barnabas.

Peter's Brief Gentile Ministry While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word . . . Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized . . . -- Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius was told, by the angel of the Lord, to come to Peter's house (Acts 10:3-5, 17, 18). The church was not present nor did it order the baptism nor is there any record of any delegated authority. Peter did ask if a few believing Jews had any objections, but he did not ask for permission nor authority to baptize Cornelius. Peter (not the church) commanded them to be baptized and started the First Gentile Baptist Church with a few charter members all without constitution, bylaws, officers, or the so-called transmitted or delegated authority from his or another church.

Paul's Antioch Ordination Now there were in the church that was at Antioch certain prophets and teachers . . . As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. So they, being sent forth by the Holy Ghost. . . sailed to Antioch, from whence they had been recommended to the grace of God for the work which they fulfilled. -- Acts 13:1-4; 14:26 The whole church did not seem to be involved here in the missionary recommendation—only certain prophets and teachers. Second, it was the Holy Ghost's authority that sent them. Third, the prophets' and teachers' part, in the matter, was merely an approval and recognition of the Holy Spirit's calling and working in these men's lives and a "recommendation" of them to the grace of God. The same may be said of any ordination committee. They merely recognize and approve whom God has already called and chosen.

Paul's Jail Ministry Now when they . . . were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia . . . they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not . . . --Acts 16:6-12 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. -- Acts 16:9 . . . And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he . . . was baptized, he and all his, straightway."- Acts 16:25-34

It is clear (in Acts 16) that Paul and company were not sent on the above mission by any church at all. Their destination and ministry had only the Holy Spirit's direction alone. The Holy Spirit, acting directly and alone, forbid them to preach in Asia or go to Bithynia but led them to Macedonia, where they acquired a prison ministry in Phillipi. No church gave them any delegated or transmitted or transferred authority to baptize the jailer and his family nor was the church even present. Paul's Synagogue Ministry (Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath . . . And Crispus . . . believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized. -- Acts 18:3-8 There was no church present in the synagogue, and no delegated church authority was given to baptize Crispus and the others. The authority to baptize cannot be separated from the authority to preach the gospel. Because certain preachers and missionaries preach the gospel without baptizing or without correctly baptizing converts, does not mean that they are not obligated nor commanded to do so "correctly." What are we saying? We are saying that saved Baptists are commanded to preach the Gospel and immerse their converts (or get them to a church, where they may be immersed) and to teach them to observe all things in the scriptures and to function as a New Testament church. Preachers and missionaries, who do less, are disobedient and living beneath their privileges. Any saved person can claim Bible authority but is bound to discharge that authority scripturally and responsibly.

Paul the Ana-Baptist . . . finding certain disciples, 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. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. 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. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. -- Acts 19:1-7 The Ephesian disciples had "link-chain" succession to John the Baptist. At least, they claimed it. Yet, Paul perceived serious doctrinal error and rebaptized them. He did not find fault with their antiquity nor their link-chain succession nor the authority of their Baptizer. They claimed that they had John's baptism but had never heard of the Christ or the Holy Spirit, both of which John preached. Paul took it on himself to count their doctrine and its baptism faulty and to rebaptize them and to start the First Ephesian Baptist church. He wrote to that church, later, reminding them of the "one" baptism (Eph. 4:4, 5)—the only cross reference to Ephesian baptism (Acts 19:1-7).

Authority without Getting the Job Done Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils . . . -- Luke 9:1 And I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not. -- Luke 9:40

Certain Landmark Baptist brethren, no doubt, forget how God provoked dead, orthodox Baptist churches with fire-breathing Methodists and with even a chair smashing Presbyterian (just as he provoked Israel with saved Gentiles). With all their "authority," many Baptists could not duplicate the spiritual results of these "unauthorized" believers. We don't mean to justify the doctrinal errors of Rome's Protestant daughters, but we do wish to point out that Baptists are not immune to the mistakes of the disciples who were given authority and power and "flubbed" it. Moreover, Christ did not give authority and power to jealous disciples to forbid others from doing the work of God (Luke 9:49,50), after the disciples watered down their own authority and power by succumbing to indifference (Luke 9:12), faithlessness (Luke 9:32,41), sleepiness (Luke 9:32), tradition (Luke 9:33), perverseness (Luke 9:41), and fleshly arrogance (Luke 9:54, 55). What shall we conclude? We are Baptist! We are free! We don't have to prove anything to anyone or someone else's church! We need not answer to anyone's Baptist authority nor to their Catholic nonsense!

--by Herb