"the original Baptist church"

Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by menageriekeeper, Jul 28, 2010.

  1. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The SBC is the orginal Baptist church"

    Laughing done?

    This remark was made to an acquaintance of mine and I know its not true, but I can't think of a single resource to give her to explain how things really worked (except the BB of course).

    Help? I would prefer an online source if possible, but a book title would be fine.

    Oh. And someone tell me that when the young man who made this comment gets to SWBTS that they will teach him SBC history. :eek:
     
  2. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, founded in 30 AD, of course!

    (Sorry, I couldn't resist!) :D

    The first churches with the name Baptist have their roots in the restoration movement in England in the very early 17th century. The first General Baptist Church was founded in 1609 under the leadership of John Smyth and the first Particular Baptist Church was founded in 1616 under the Pastoral leadership of Henry Jacob.

    The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia.
     
  3. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Love it!

    Did the two churches (general and particular) ever join together or were they always a little bit different?

    Which group do most American Baptists decend from?

    Am I correct that Southern Baptists were a split from a northern group? And what caused the split?
     
  4. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    No. One (General) was Arminian and the other (Particular) was Calvinist. And you know how well they get along! :)
    Both.
    Yes, from the old American Baptist Union. The SBC broke away in 1845 but the Northern (now American) Baptist Convention was not officially founded until 1907. The main reason for the split was the regional differences regarding the impending Civil War.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221
    First, the SBC is not a (local) church. It is a fellowship of churches with missions as it purpose.

    The SBC was formed in 1845, when northern Baptist churches would not allow Southern slaveholders to be missionaries. At the time there was no Northern (later American) Baptist Convention; only local associations. They did not form until the early 20th century.

    BTW, technically, the SBC is only in operation for 3 days a year - the annual meeting.
    And many SBC'ers consider themselves independent - as the SBC can not demand a church take certain action.
     
  6. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    LOL, now that I was quick to explain! That was part of the answer to why there are soooo many different versions of Baptists.
     
  7. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,645
    Likes Received:
    311
    Now for the Northern Baptist side of the family

    Yes, the 1845 date is the considered the date of the formal splitting up of the Triennial Baptist Convention on Missions. However, matters had been simmering for a decade or so before that date.

    A good treatment of the situation can be found in Francis Wayland's Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. According to FW, the main bone of contention was as he described it, the principle that no Baptist church could be represented in a body beyond itself and be bound to that body's decisions. As Hiscox wrote, all church councils are advisory.

    So, Baptists in the North organized themselves along functional lines. Like minded individuals organized themselves in various boards to carry out various ministries NB Foreign and Home Missionary Society, the NB Publication Society, ect. Individual churches would financially support these endeavors. But, it was a given church's call on which if any organization it would support.
     
  8. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/wales.associations.html

    You might consider reading this before accepting the Anglican priest, John Smyth, as the first baptist. He was never a baptist and died connected to the Dutch Mennonites.

    There were baptists in Wales early on, and in fact, the Welsh Baptists established the first two churches in England.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  9. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does this mean that Baptists can't even agree on Baptist history?? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
     
  10. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Rolland Bainton, the mennonite scholar claims that the 16th century European Anabaptists called themselves "Baptists" in response to the epitaph "Ana-baptist" - Rolland Bainton, The Reformation of the 16th Century, p. 99

    "To call these people Anabaptists, that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as, infant baptism was no baptism at all. They called themselves simply Baptists, not re-Baptists. The offensive name was fastened to them in order to bring them under the penalty of the Justinian Code against the Donatists"
     
  11. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Where two baptists have assembled, you usually have three opinions!

    Basptist history in the UK is spurious because of the Church of England being the state church, and many of the dissident leaders were originally ordained to that ministry.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  12. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,928
    Likes Received:
    96

    ALL RIGHT JIM!!! Da gweithia (Good Work!!)
     
  13. Jon-Marc

    Jon-Marc
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,752
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's no wonder Christians can't get along. They're too busy breaking off into different sects with slightly different beliefs and saying, "We don't agree with THAT Baptist church." In my home city there is a 7th Day Baptist church that meets in another church that uses it on Sunday.
     
  14. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,928
    Likes Received:
    96
    Jon, I will see you 2 churches & raise you one.
     
  15. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is one thing to be a baptist by conviction and try to follow baptist history as much as possibe. It is then another thing for us to claim exclusivism, and discredit every other believer.

    I am firmly baptist, but I attended a non-denominational Bible College, and also taught in a school that trained Anglican, United Church and Presbyterian ministers.

    This did not exclude me from being a baptist. This did not discredit these folks from believing their church was also correct.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  16. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    No. We were talking about the first churches that were called "Baptist" by the people themselves. In my opinion the word "Baptist" is not a denominational name but rather a doctrinal identity. Therefore, in my opinion, "Baptist" churches (Baptist in doctrinal identity, not denominational name) have existed all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history.


    The first Baptist church in Wales, at Olchon, was established in 1633.

    And I agree Smyth was not what we would call a Baptist today. Of course, neither was Roger Williams, often (wrongly) given credit for establishing the first Baptist church in the US when, in reality, that honor goes to Dr. John Clarke of Newport.

    There is no doubt that Williams founded a church which he called "Baptist" in Providence prior to Clarke founding the church in Newport, but my argument is that the church in Providence was not a Baptist church in doctrine and practice until sometime around 1645.

    Williams had baptized himself prior to leaving Europe, then, in 1638 he was first baptized by Ezekiel Holliman then he, in turn, baptized Holliman! That, the claim was made, constituted the first Baptist church in the US.

    However, I, being a Baptist, believe a church is an "organized, assembly of BAPTIZED believers." And, I, being a Baptist, believe that baptism is a CHURCH ordinance, so, two unbaptized people cannot baptize each other and claim to be a church. An already organized church must be the baptismal authority or the baptism is not scriptural and thus the church so founded is likewise illegitimate. :)
     
    #16 TCassidy, Jul 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2010
  17. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,928
    Likes Received:
    96
    Thanks for confirming the Cymry / Welsh in all of it. A people who developed the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones cant be all bad...LOL
     
  18. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    Not me! I'm Irish!
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Earth Wind and Fire

    Earth Wind and Fire
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    18,928
    Likes Received:
    96
    Celtic & not Anglo Saxon.....Your OK in my book. I'd even have a beer with you.

    And you sing Im told.....taint bad.

    Sorry....I would Copy Catherine Zeta Jones to this but dont think the wife would approve....Thats one of our national treasures!!!
     
    #19 Earth Wind and Fire, Jul 29, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 29, 2010
  20. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,196
    Likes Received:
    1,315
    [​IMG]

    Yes, I sing. Badly, but after a couple beers, who cares!
     

Share This Page

Loading...