From The Pen of the Prince of Preachers...

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by TCGreek, Mar 13, 2008.

  1. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. Charles H Spurgeon:

    We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never come from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men. (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Volume VII, page 225).

    2. Was Spurgeon overly Baptist?
     
  2. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, because I do not think he was not refering to 'Baptists' as an organization but an ever present set of views consistantly through out the churches history. Sometimes all of those veiws were not prevelent in certain groups and sometimes there was more added, but I believe he was refering to that which distinquishes us from the Catholics and Protestants 'of his time'. There has always been a church in existence besides the Catholic Church, and the Protestants (of which included Reformers) were not initially trying to break away from the Catholic Church (though they eventually did) but .. Reform.. some of it's views back to a more biblical perspective.

    And he is right BTW.. Those groups who held baptistic views were persecuted and cast out or killed by not only the Catholic Church but Protestant Churches as well.
     
    #2 Allan, Mar 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2008
  3. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,687
    Likes Received:
    242
    By "unbroken line of succession" he was speaking of ordinations. Spurgeon believed that all Baptist ministers were ordained by those ordained by those ordained by those ordained by . . . those ordained by the Apostles.

    Was he "overly Baptist?" I don't know what that means. I believe he was mistaken concerning this one idea.
     
  4. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    As a former Bible Baptist church member I was "brought up" in the Trail of Blood teaching.
    That the church I belonged to was directly descended from the Jerusalem church through an unbroken line of descendancy (am I saying this correctly ?).
    Oh, that made me real happy.
    In the first place the reason I became atheist was because I was raised in the notion that the Roman Catholic Church is the "true" church.

    Until I learned my math and saw that it was not.

    Then I became Baptist, and in the "true" church that never was a part of the Roman Catholic Church.
    Oh joy, oh joy.

    Until I looked around.

    And saw all the bickerings and the differences in doctrines and practices and this while each Baptist church was saying they came from Jerusalem.

    Came Bible College.

    Same thing. Unbroken line of ordinations, direct descendancy from Jerusalem, persecuted down the centuries.

    Yeah, yeah, I know that already.

    I asked my professor, who by the way offered that babies had no souls in the womb (do all Baptists believe that way ?), to prove by Scripture.

    Don't tell me that this church came from that church, and that church came from that church, and that church from that, and that from that, all the way to BBF in Missouri, and out again, all the way to Europe, and all the way to Asia Minor, and all the way to Jerusalem.

    Show me the Scripture !!

    Or at least show me the extra-Scriptural documents.

    None. nada. zilch. No Hay.

    And then I found the Primitive Baptists.

    At least the pastor then of the PB church I joined honestly told me he is unable to prove by Scripture that the baptists are directly descended from Jerusalem. That PB church can only trace back, extra Biblically, all the way to the Welsh Baptists, and no further.

    No such thing as true New Testament church anymore.

    That church has gone up to heaven, with its Founder.

    All that are here on earth are gatherings of believers claiming descent from that church, but absolutely splintered and riddled with errors in doctrine and practice, seen as perfect only because of the Savior.

    P.S.

    Personally, for me, the true church is whatever church I currently go to.
    Baptist only, of course.
     
    #4 pinoybaptist, Mar 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2008
  5. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Unbroken succession" seems to be what Spurgeon is getting at.
     
  6. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    But Spurgeon says we baptists have an unbroken line and then goes about proving his case.
     
  7. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,635
    Likes Received:
    45
    Didn't Spurgeon refuse ordination?
     
    #7 Jerome, Mar 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2008
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    It's very easy to trace ALL the Baptists in London back to the first English separatist Baptists (Smythe/Helwys) in early 1600.

    In a thread on the dreaded KJVonly debate it was ably pointed out that not a single Baptist was in any group in the translation committees (started in 1604). Why? There were no organized "baptist" churches in England at that time!

    Baptistic? yep. Loose kinship with others in centuries before? yep. 99% of the groups mentioned as "kin" to Baptists would NOT BE WELCOME in my church today! I have certainly not found a single group in 30-1600 that would hold to all the Baptist Distinctives found in our churches today.
     
  9. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look at it again in light of what I said. Notice he isn't speaking about an 'unbroken ordination' as was previously assumed due to this:
    He actaully does not say anything about ordination but is specific in the following sentence as to what this 'unbroken line' is:
    He is speaking not about an unbroken line of ordained men (which in truth is apparent) but of views or 'principles' which are and have been veiled and forgotten like a river that runs underground for a little season [that eventually comes back out again]. Through the Churches history (that which was seperate from the Catholic Church) this is something seen with crystal clarity. Sometimes they held to a few of the Baptistic vews and sometimes to a multiplicity of them but only in his time were they all brought back into light in group. An example is us as people in a family; it is like our more pronounced characteristics when looked for down a family lineage. Sometimes they are seen clearly and sometimes they are slightly there only barly noticable . However their children or grandparents might display those characteristics more noticably than they did. Yet there is always distinctive charactoristics within and of that family that continue forth.

    I have nothing more to add as I see it or at least understand it, so I hope you all enjoy your evenings :) . God bless you richly in Christ Jesus to His Glory - Amen

    Any [ ] are my additions for clarifications
     
    #9 Allan, Mar 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2008
  10. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,687
    Likes Received:
    242
    Allan, you're mistaken.

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=7771

     
  11. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,635
    Likes Received:
    45
    Allan is right about Spurgeon not believing in ordination-based succession.
    Read the chapter "Divine and Human Ordination" in Spurgeon's autobiography.
     
  12. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I am mistaken Aaron then that is fine and I'll will definately take note. However, the argument you bring to the table in your previous posting still does not lend any credence to your argument.

    It appears your pulling your argument from the Catholic view and understanding of what "apostolic" means regarding his quote here:
    Please note however that your contention of what Spurgeon is supposedly refering to regarding the rendering or definition of the word 'apostolic' is something only the varied Catholics hold to:
    Apostolic:
    1. Of or relating to a succession of spiritual authority from the 12 Apostles, regarded by Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some others to have been perpetuated by successive ordinations of bishops and to be requisite for valid orders and administration of sacraments.
    2. Roman Catholic Church Of or relating to the pope as the successor of Saint Peter; papal.


    Spurgeon was by no means Catholic nor did he lead toward their views on this and we see this in the rest of his quote.
    WHo is being spoken of in his address? The Church itself, not ordained successionism, and he goes on to denouce the ordination succession and contend for the continuence of the Church through believers. Yes, Pastors are apart of the church but they are only a part of the whole and the church is not continued through them alone. Notice he states the churches continuence is "through the blood of good men and true, who never forsook the testimony of Jesus". = believers, and not ordained pastors alone.

    Thus in the portion of his contetion you quote he totally denies what you are saying he is contending for.
    Therefore there must be another definition of what 'apostolic' means that is to be brought in to play here, and in fact there is.
    The church was built upon the foundation of the apostles (NT) and prophets (OT), Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone. (Eph 2:20) So was the church established through apostilitic succession or through the conveyence of the truths they taught to saved god-fearing men. Of course it is the later and it is the same thing Spurgeon believed.

    To show this in more full detail of Spurgeons view let us look at the last portion which establishes my point:
    Now liesten carefully to what is said here. The church came through the loins of the Pastors and laborious evangelists, and if he stopped there you would have your argument. However, Spurgeon continues with a second and third group who have continued the church - faithful martyrs - (of whom only some were ordained men and many were not), and honorable men of God (these are those who are saved and God-fearing believers but not ordained). Spurgeon is talking about the teachings of God continuing through all saved and God-fearing men, both pastors and honorable (godly) men alike that have maintained the true churches existence through out history and till the coming of Christ Jesus.

    BTW - did you ever wonder why he called them fishermen and not apostles here. IMO it was because he is refencing their salvation and not so much their ordinations/or calling. The church continues through believers and of those there are ordained men which shepard the flocks of God.

    Editted in:
    Lastly -
    Look I'm not saying he isn't a successionist but I'm saying his words convey something distinctly different than what ordination successionists state and adhere to. Yes, Spurgeon believed that baptists never came out of the Catholic church nor the protestant reformation but that we have always been since the apostles (I agree with him). I know he also states 'baptists' come from a long lineage of those who were not called baptists therefore he is not speaking of a demonination but a set of belief or principles. It is from this two basic forms of successionsim come. One is direct ordinational successionism and the other is doctrinal successionism (yes, I made this one up because I can't remember the actaul term at the moment so bare with me:) ). In order for the first to be true Spurgeons illistration of "a river which may travel underground for a little season" would make no sense and also because he states "have always had honest and holy adherents." Now in line of the second (doctrinal successionism) this application makes sense, since we know historically many of those churches who were not a part of the Catholic church did not hold oftem time to many of the truths we know now. Yet those truths would surface eventually and be held even if it ment creating a new body which would not relent the truths they had come to know.

    We must be careful in 'where' we place Spurgeons view of successionism since there is more than one brand and in light of Spurgeons owe denuncation of ordination successionism we must conclude he is refering to the continuence of Beliefs and principles as was quoted from him earlier. I to hold the same view of what I termed doctrinal successionism (or biblical teachings - if you can remember the proper term for it, remind me I don't have time at present to look it up)
     
    #12 Allan, Mar 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2008
  13. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,687
    Likes Received:
    242
    I won't belabor the point. This was just one of Spurgeon's few and inconsequential mistakes. He was mighty in the Scriptures, there is no doubt, and his expositions upon them are next to indisputable.
     
  14. Allan

    Allan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Messages:
    6,888
    Likes Received:
    0
    To that my friend I will not argue (much):)

    Grace and peace be yours in our Lord Jesus Christ. :thumbs:
     

Share This Page

Loading...