Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by CarpentersApprentice, Nov 7, 2006.
Could someone define this for me and give some examples?
Go to http://google.com and type in the term you want defined. Type the word define first.
I am thinking that the words to be defined are "spiritual kinship"
The context in which you encountered this phrase would be helpful.
Basically it is when the terminology of family is applied to a spiritual relationship.
Believers in scripture are often described this way: see I Tim. 5:1-2.
Extrabiblical use would be godfather, etc.; spiritual wives (Mormonism); and authoritarian cult leaders claiming to be spiritual fathers of their followers.
Oops... I thought it was a familiar term to the folks on this board. I saw it in another thread here discussing Baptist history. From The Baptist Story by David Potter (2004).
"The origin of the Baptists is a controversial subject. Baptist historians have advanced three major views of Baptist roots: the Successionist Theory, the Spiritual Kinship Theory, and the English Separatist Theory. The Successionist Theory contends that an unbroken succession of churches have taught and practiced Baptist principles from the time of the New Testament. The Spiritual Kinship Theory contends that, although a visible succession is not provable, Baptist churches have always existed since the time of the apostles."
He doesn't go into it though. Is there anymore to the definition than this? What is he talking about? What are some examples?
We talked about this in another thread. Southern Baptists believe that what they teach and preach, how they interpret scripture, their doctrine, is most compatible with the New Testament. Some believe in an unbroken line of succession, others that those of the SBC-type have existed since NT times. They are very clear that they existed long before, and outside of, Roman Catholicism, never having submitted to its authority, and were not part of Luther's Reformation. How's that in about 75-80 words? :thumbs:
Could you link me to that thread? No sense in repeating everything if it's already been covered.
It's not a nice thread. Too much of the natural man got in the way. Forget it.
OK. Well then... who are these "SBC-types" that have "existed since NT times"?
Uh...Baptists in General believe your first statement, since we as baptists hold (in the main) the same basic doctrines. THe small side issues show where we disagree and show a branching off but the truck in the same from which the branches come out of. This "trunk" so to speak is what is known as the Baptist distinctives (or doctrines).
As to the OP Below is a link that allows you to look a many scholarly and credible works as well as books free to read (or pring out) on line.
Though I am not a Calvinist, it is a Calvinistic weblink. But in this field of study they present all the different fields study in a way to better allow the person researching to draw their own conclusions. Here is the link:
I thought the term simply meant we are all brothers and sisters in Christ...
Some SBCers are Calvinists (unfortunately). Not all are. As to who those who believe in Baptist succession:
"All that Baptists mean by 'church succession' is: there has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth." (W. A. Jarrel)
"The New Testament churches were independent, self-governing, democratic bodies like the Baptist churches of today. We originated, not at the Reformation, nor in the Dark Ages, nor in any century after the Apostles, but our marching orders are the Great Commission, and the first Baptist church was the church at Jerusalem. Our principles are as old as Christianity, and we acknowledge no founder but Christ." (George McDaniel)
"From the time the Lord Jesus Christ established his New Testament church during His earthly ministry, until the present time, there have always existed believers and churches apart from both Romanism and Protestantism that have held to the essentials of New Testament truth." (W. R. Downing)
"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 came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves." (C. H. Spurgeon)
"The authenticity of a Baptist church depends, not on its ability to trace an unbroken line of connection to the apostles, but rather in its ability to demonstrate that it presently possesses the doctrines, principles, and practices which the apostles had and which are evident on the pages of the New Testament." (Kenneth Good)
"When we speak of Baptist succession, we mean that since the time of Christ's earthly ministry there have appeared in every generation churches like the one He founded while He was here on earth ... and that such churches will continue to exist until the Rapture." (David Gonnella)
"I mean by the term Baptist church perpetuity that the church as an institution has existed in every age since the personal ministry of Christ. There has never been a day since the organization of the Jerusalem church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament order existing on earth." (Milburn Cockrell)
"Churches like the first church have continued to exist from that day to the present time. Christ promised that they would not cease to exist. Those today who claim that they and the churches of the Reformation have restored New Testament Christianity overlook the fact that the church Jesus built would not have to be restored." (M. L. Moser Sr.)
How do I answer the critique that the spiritual kinship theory of Baptist origins is only wishful thinking?
At the reformed reader site many of the authors noted the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Waldensians and other non-Catholic groups as precursors of the Baptists.
One of the problem I see with this is that these groups all held decidely non-Baptist ideas. The Montanists were like modern day Pentacostals and Adventists. The Novatians and Donatists were Catholic in their understanding of the sacraments. The Paulicians and the Albegensians were dualists, more akin to the New Age today than the Baptists.
How do I explain how these pre-baptist Baptists could believe such non-Baptist ideas?
They did have many decidedly unbaptist ideas amongst them but they are not considered 'baptist' because they have always held 'our' same ideas but many of the same dotrinal principles; one being baptism by immersion and others like the deity of Christ, ect...
Thus the spiritual kinship is better understood rather than direct lineage of doctrine. Another thing is that none of those groups where outside the influence of another. What I mean by this is: you can find where a person at one time came from another group but left (for differing reasons) and either joined up with another group (if the person usually became a pastor we see a change in theology) or they just began a new group that was similar to the old but varied in doctrine.
The point is not that they were ALL 100% biblical but that they were never apart of the Catholic Church and their were also biblical enough (from somewhat to very) to never become a cult or outright false religion. Thus we can trace our heritage 'through' them back to the early church.
The early church was not 100% in agreement with all things either. But they had the advantage of the apostles to help maintain proper understanding. Later there was a scattering of believers due to persecution/slaughter. And then it move to the Catholic Church slaughtering the believers but the truth still remained and continued in some form or fashion OUTSIDE the Catholic Church. The Church or God, Assemblies of God, And non-demoninaltionals have their roots in Baptists history yet they from the outside don't seem to hold Baptistic views per-say but there are some doctrinal things that are consistant and viable that not only historically show they have a direct link from baptists but their views on certain main doctrine that show the same.
That is all spiritual 'kinship' is about. We can show relation by certain views (more than one) concerning doctrines and practice.
Yeah, we aren't saying that there was a church named Baptist on the corner in Jerusalem, just that the doctrine, the interpretation, that Baptists believe and follow today is the same as that produced and believed at the time of Christ. SBCers (not all, but many) will say that NT doctrine was preserved and sustained over the centuries, culminating in the SBC congregations of today, utterly outside of any other stream of Christian inspiration - what they're preaching and teaching matches that of the early church. They are saying that other doctrines, those maintained by the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., are not accurately presenting the entire Gospel, as presented by the New Testament writers - there are errors in their interpretations. Lots of folks want to throw bricks at the SBC for that, but that's what they believe, and they're going to stick with it. Post-modern thought, tolerance, I'm OK, You're OK, hate speech, and other thoughts bursting on the scene are disruptive of the idea, that's for sure. :wavey:
What reference do you have that will best demonstrate this?
(What I read on the reformed reader site does not seem to support this position.)
I know you have not read through or even carefully skimmed the books and reviews of that post. If you had you would see many of your answers right there. Some are notation of record and some delve deeper and and pull clearer historical data. Here is an excert from one that skims the issue anabaptists backward:
The Beliefs, Antiquities & Succession of Baptists
There are other more decisive historical accounts but I don't have the time to hunt for them at present. Take your time and read them (the ones to which you are looking for specific info that is) They are not at the beginning but just after and downward.