History has an amazing way of repeating itself.Perhaps the reason may be that when similar actions are taken similar results can be expected.
In the 17th century in England there was a debate between John Bunyan and William Kiffen on the issues of baptism and the Lord's Supper. Bunyan favored open communion and felt that baptism by immersion, while scriptural should not be made a test of fellowship. Kiffen stood squarely for believer's baptism as the only true baptism, and stood strongly for closed communion. He seemed to recognize that when Baptists failed to follow the New Testament teachings on this, they soon would cease to be Baptists. (A brief story of this debate is found in S.L. Stealy's A Baptist Treasury, pages 78-85).
The proof of the correctness of Kiffin's position is found in history itself. Very shortly after Bunyan's death, his church ceased to be Baptist and became Congregationalist, practicing infant baptism. Mississippians who recently visited the church say that the baptistry has been sealed up. Is history repeating itself? Most English Baptists are reported now to be following the Bunyan tradition of open communion, and many practice open membership. At the recent Baptist World Alliance, an English theologian advocated the acceptance of sprinkling for baptism, if the person sprinkled was a believer. (Two American Baptist Convention theologians, in a recently published manual of polity and practice for Baptist churches, say that "pouring may be an acceptable substitute" as baptism for "aged or inform" persons who "ought not to be immersed." A Baptist Manual of Polity and Practice by Maring and Hudson, p. .135.)
What is the result of such a position? In the Aug. 5, 1965 issue of The Baptist Times (London) the front page lead story headline reads, "Two Bristol Churches Unite." There follows the story that the Arley Congregational and Gotham Grove Baptist churches in Bristol, England, have united into one congregation, and called a Congregational minister as pastor. Interestingly enough, the story states that the Gotham Methodist Church also is discussing becoming part of the merger.
What does all of this mean? Without questioning the right of these congregations to do what they have done (although they have no New Testament authority for doing it), we simply call attention to the fact that another Baptist church has ceased to exist. It no longer is teaching the doctrines which have made Baptists through the centuries. It has abandoned its New Testament based position.
A few years ago I worshipped one Sunday in a Christian-Baptist church in a northern city. This church formerly had been Baptist but had merged with a Christian church, to form a new congregation. The result? It no longer was Baptist either in its doctrine, its practice, its program or its leadership. This brings us once more to say that which often we have said, "When Baptists abandon their distinctive doctrines they quickly cease to be Baptists or give a Baptist witness." A few among Southern Baptists (we are convinced they are not many) would have our convention move more and more into ecumenical circles. Such action means a "kiss of death" for the Baptist witness. When we join hands with those who reject the authority of the New Testament, abandon clear teachings of that book, and in any way compromise our doctrines and practice, we soon shall cease to be a distinctive people. And, after all, why should God bless us, or let us live, under such circumstances?
=========== [From Joe T. Odle, The Baptist Messenger, November 18, 1965, p. 16. This document provided by Ben Stratton, Farmington, KY; formatted by Jim Duvall.]
Mississippi Baptist History Index
Baptist History Homepage