Baptist Succession Poll

[swaimj]

As a veteran of a few conversations on the old Baptist Board (that was last year, right?), I know that our Catholic friends LOVE to challenge Baptists who say that Baptists can be traced directly back to Acts or John the Baptist. They seem not to know that many Baptists believe that the scriptures alone are the authority for the Church, and unbroken historical succession is unnecesary. I am not interested in debating the views on this thread, but I am interested in knowing what the views are among Baptists on this thread. Kind of a head count. So, please, answer simply "yes" or "no" and qualify your answer if you must:

Do you, as a Baptist, believe there is an unbroken line of Baptist churches from the present time to the early church?

[ June 29, 2001: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]

[DocCas]

Yes, and no. :D

I believe there has never been a time when "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" has been absent from the earth, but I also believe our authority comes from the scriptures and not from an historical succession. However, I do believe it is possible for some churches to trace their linage back to the apostolic era, but it is not necessary to do so. However, with that said I do not believe in the "succession of baptism" theory which states (in a simplistic say) that baptism is only valid if you are baptized by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by John the Baptist.

How is that for a simple "yes" or "no" answer with a slight explanation? :D

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I will be moving this thread to General Discussion since it is for Baptists. This is an area to discuss non-Baptist beliefs.

Thank You,
Joseph

[Joseph_Botwinick]

bump

[HankD]

No.

Why would we?
Personally (and I hope I don't ruffle any feathers), I don't believe we need any "succession" historical or otherwise because Jesus Christ is the living head of the church(es). Those whom He "sent" have their words codified in the Word of God. He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and reprove the world through the age. He also promised to be with us until the end of the age.

HankD

[Lorelei]

I do not see the need to worry with such things. This focuses on what doctrine is right or wrong rather then the fact that THE church (the body of all believers regardless of the sign on the door) is and has been around since the time of Christ.

I have always said and will always say, I am a Christian first and a Baptist second.

I think our focus should be on this:
"Now, I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no division among you: but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgement" 1 Corinthians 1:10

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we welcome the beliefs of everyone who confesses to be a Christian regardless of what those beliefs are. I am after all a Baptist for a reason. I am just saying, that I personally do not find the need to prove that my church is better then yours. This adds to the divisions among us and edifies no one. The Word of God is and always should be our final authority, not whose church has been established the longest.

~Lorelei

[rlvaughn]

Yes, as I define the words of your question.

unbroken line of Baptist churches - never a time when God's truth was not in the world; not only in the Bible and with individuals, but also in a corporate way. There were believers gathered as congregations that held to the same basic principles as those called Baptists today.

[swaimj]

Oops for posting in the wrong area! :rolleyes:

Thanks for the replies. smile.gif

Anyone else?

[Gina B]

No.
Gina

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:
Oops for posting in the wrong area! :rolleyes:

Thanks for the replies. smile.gif

Anyone else?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope.

:cool:

[Dr. Bob]

Nor I.

[hugo]

unbroken line of Baptist churches - never a time when God's truth was not in the world; not only in the Bible and with individuals, but also in a corporate way. There were believers gathered as congregations that held to the same basic principles as those called Baptists today.[/QB][/QUOTE]
---
rivaughn,

I think you got it right. We as 21st century believers are not unique. I would seriously question our legitimacy if we were, because God's Spirit has been doing the same thing for 1970 years--regenerating individuals and assembling them into congregations.

The claim by Catholics of unbroken succession is more important for them than us because they rely on their institution exclusively and need to know that it is legitimate. Their organization creates Catholics. If their organization didn't get and maintain the right blueprint from Peter and Jesus (they didn't) they are doomed (they are).

God creates born again believers who quite often end up acting like baptists. Essence precedes existence.

a baptist before and after I was saved--
hugo

[donnA]

Yes & No

Baptist churches, not in name.
But the basic beliefs of the baptist church have been around since the apostles.

[DocCas]

I just hate it when hugo and I agree! :mad: :D

[swaimj]

Let me run this up the flag pole one more time. So far we have 4 unqualified No's redface.gif plus me which makes 5. We have four Yes's, ;) but they were qualified. And the number of scoldings for asking the question: 1 :eek: Any other takers?

[ June 30, 2001: Message edited by: swaimj ]

[Joy]

No. There have always been Christians by many different names, but not one unbroken line of Baptist churches. Some were Baptistic in the way we are. Some were not. Just look at the number of Baptists and so called Baptists we have in this era. They are all slightly different. No one group of us can claim they go back thousands of years.

Yes, there have always been Believers or Christians in the Biblical sense of the word.

[Kiffin]

nope

[atestring]

No!

[upstart]

Yes.

I believe that baptist started in Matthew. God sent John the Baptist to make a way for jesus to start the church. Jesus then chose his disciples and taught them how to run a church. Jesus taught them the ordinances, baprism and the Lord's supper. When Jesus went to heaven, his disciples continued in the same doctrines. Through the centuries names have been changed.
here are some:
Mantanists (2nd century)
Welsh "Baptist" (1-5th)
Novatians (3-6th)
Donatists (4-6)
Paulicians (5-10th)
Albigenses (10-16th0
Petrobrusions-Henricians (10-16th)
Waldenses (10-16)
Arnoldists (12th Cent.)
Lollards (14th)
Anabaptist (3rd-17th cent._
Baptist (17th cent. -present)

Our motto at our church is "Remove no the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Rosa, smile.gif

[J.R. Graves]

Like every Baptist historian before 1880 and many afterwards I answer yes.

[spurg]

Here's another yes/no. It seems to me there have always been baptists with a lower case b. By that I mean there have always been a remnant of New Testament believers who held to the basics of Baptist beliefs. To try to see an unbroken line such as in The Trail of Blood, however, is strained.

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by swaimj:
Do you, as a Baptist, believe there is an unbroken line of Baptist churches from the present time to the early church? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not just no, but... well... ok, no. tongue.gif There have always been true Christians, both within and without the Roman church, but there very likely have been long gaps of years without any who could be identified as distinctly Baptist, nevertheless Christians they were.

[Roadrunner]

No, there is not an unbroken chain of baptist churches. No, Santa Claus is not of the devil. No, the KJV is not the only Bible. No, slacks on women is not a sin. No, tithing is not a NT commandment.

[Baptist Mom]

Hi I just wanted to respond to "Roadrunner" and the last post that was posted by this person.

No Santa Clause is not of the devil but it takes away the real reason we celebrate Christmas. I personally never understood Christmas anyway. We come together as a family to celebrate the birth of the Lord Jesus and it is to celebrate his birth and what do we do we give each other presents. I don't know where that was ever done in the Bible when you come to celebrate one person who is no longer with us but lives in heaven and we give each other presents????? If you have an explanation for this I would love to hear it. But Santa Clause takes away the real meaning of Christmas. It takes away that we come together to celebrate the birth of Christ. I personally allow my children to watch the Santa Clause movies and tell them that he is pretend and I tell them the real reason for Christmas is because of the Lord Jesus.

But as far as women and pants. It is not wrong to wear pants but I personally would not do it in church. I dress up out of respect of the Lord. I said this somewhere else and I would not go to a fancy restaraunt in pants so I can at least give the Lord the same kind of respect.

God bless.
Cyndi

[Roadrunner]

Hi Baptist Mom,
I thought I'd get a rise outta somebody. I will certainly agree with you that in American culture (Is that an oxymoron?)Christmas is secularized, and the reason is that most Americans do not know Christ in any real saving way.

I am sorry though that you do not understand Christmas- let me explain. We are inspired by Christ's gift to us to give gifts to others. Pretty simple, eh?

To me, and I am sure to you also, Christmas is a blessed time. I frankly get irritated with "super spiritual" Christians who try to ruin it by preaching on "Satan Claws," etc.

On the pants issue, I am glad to hear you dress up for church. Keep it up. I came out of the Jack Hyles movement, which teaches that it is definitely a terrible sin for a woman to wear anything but a dress at all times.

grace to you,
RR

[Pete Richert]

There was certainly always true believers. I believe Augustine was a true believer, and he certainly had some very unBaptist views. Perhaps the paticular set of doctrines and theology that we emphasise now is rather modern, but that doesn't mean the Spirit of the Baptist was always around.

[CorpseNoMore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pure and simple genius:
There was certainly always true believers. I believe Augustine was a true believer, and he certainly had some very unBaptist views. Perhaps the paticular set of doctrines and theology that we emphasise now is rather modern, but that doesn't mean the Spirit of the Baptist was always around.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well friend, I dunno what the Spirit of the Baptist is. But I do know a Baptist is a particular theological position, in other words it's definiable.

[Squire Robertsson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Yes, as I define the words of your question.

unbroken line of Baptist churches - never a time when God's truth was not in the world; not only in the Bible and with individuals, but also in a corporate way. There were believers gathered as congregations that held to the same basic principles as those called Baptists today.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like three yeses to me (RL, Hugo, and Dr. C). I'll add my concurance and make it 4.

[Ransom]

swaimj asked:

Do you, as a Baptist, believe there is an unbroken line of Baptist churches from the present time to the early church?

No. Why should I be looking for such a thing? Our authority is the Scriptures, not some kind of apostolic succession.

A supposed "trail of blood" doesn't give the Baptist church any more legitimacy than the Scriptures alone. If a Bible fell out of an airplane and landed in the middle of an isolated village, and the villagers believed the Gospel, and the Baptist denomination was the result, it would be no less legitimate.

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

[SaggyWoman]

I think the great succession comes only in the fact that we can know Christ and have a relationship with him.

[swaimj]

By my count, the current score is:

YES 3
YES/NO 5
NO 13

[Chick Daniels]

No. Lollards were Lollards. Waldensians were Waldensians. I am a Baptist. The Baptist movement took hold in 17th century England.

Chick

[J.R. Graves]

The question is did the Lollards or the Waldenses hold to Baptist/baptistic beliefs? The question is not if they were perfect, as none of our Baptist churches are either. But were they evangelicals who held to the Baptist positions on believer's immersion?

[Chick Daniels]

1) There is more to being a Baptist than the issue of immersion.

2) If I worked for Coke and you worked for Pepsi, both companies that produce similar but distinct products, would someone come along a few hundred years later and conclude that we both worked for Coke?

Chick

[Ransom]

J.R. Graves asked:

But were they evangelicals who held to the Baptist positions on believer's immersion?

Are you now going to contend that present-day Mennonites, Pentecostals, and Brethren are really closet Baptists? All of them practice credobaptism by immersion.