The following is not posted as a debate on Baptist origins, but to promote discussion on the different views of Baptist origins held by various Baptists. I developed the outline below out of the discussion that occurred here at Baptist Board probably ten years ago. It includes input from Baptist preachers Mark Osgatharp, Ben Stratton and Nathan Finn. What do you think? Might the totality of views on Baptist origins fit within this outline?
Outline of various views of Baptist origins, presented in a chronologically-oriented format
- Continuation
- Continuation of biblical teachings (spiritual succession)
- Succession of Baptist churches
- Church perpetuity
- Chain-link succession
- Church succession (succession of church organizations)
- Apostolic succession (succession of valid ordinations)
- Baptismal succession (succession of valid baptisms)
- Restoration
- Converging streams/multiple origins
- Influence of Anabaptists
- Outgrowth of English Separatism
- Spontaneous origination
Views of Baptist Origins
Discussion in 'Baptist History' started by rlvaughn, Jun 14, 2016.
-
-
Your outline looks like a good start. I have The Theology of John Smyth in my amazon wishlist, maybe it will make an appearance for father's day.
-
Always good to get those wishes out there before Father's Day!
A couple of further comments. Not sure how well-known the idea of spontaneous origination is. Spontaneous origination has been mentioned from time to time in relation to Baptist origins. This idea, as stated by Brackney (The Baptists, p. xvii), is that "Baptists originate whenever and wherever the Holy Spirit calls forth a congregation which conforms to literal Biblical revelation, regardless of historical antecedents or relationships with other groups." This kind of origin is "spontaneous" in that any group of people might come to the conviction that the Bible teaches the baptism of professing believers by immersion and could by that be made Baptists. It has a basic difference from the other two views. Most views and sub-theories of Baptist origins knit together Baptist history, Baptist identity, and Baptist polity, but the spontaneous origination view does not particularly address when Baptists originated, but only how. -
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
In the main, I hold to
-
The Biblicist Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I believe "Continuation" is the proper position. If you removed the concrete church, its ordinances, ministry and mission from the New Testament you would have very little left of the New Testament and so New Testament Christianity cannot continue to exist 9I did not say personal salvation could not exist) apart from its New Testament FORM as centered around the New Testament church institution. Hence, "Succession of Baptist Churches" or as I prefer to label it "Succession of New Testament Churches" is the correct choice through "church succession" as the Great Commission in Matthew 28:19-20 is impossible to administer apart from organic contact in a reproductive or successive manner. Each participle demands immediate organic contact between the administrator "ye" and "them." The third participle requires habitual assemblying together between "ye" and "them" as such things as Matthew 18:15-18 cannot be "observed" outside membership in a New Testament church and neither can Matthew 26:12-30.
The reproductive character is immediately recognized in "make disicples" as a discipleis a follower or one who adopts and goes with the same gospel, administers the same baptism and observes the same faith and order as the master - so like reproducing like is built into the commission. Those who embrace and go with "another gospel" are not disciples of Christ but apostates (Gal. 1:8-9). Those who administer another baptism reject the counsel of God against themselves (Lk. 7:29-30). Those who teach and observe another faith and practice have departed from "the faith" (1 Tim. 4:1).
The words of Christ promise day in and day out presence of this plural "ye" in congregational form until the second coming as his words are literally "all the days of the age" but as Dr. Hendriksen translates it "day in and day out until the end of the age." Remove the New Testament church from any generation and New Testament Christianity as revealed in the New Testament ceases to exist. Remove the New Testament church (officers, ordinances, mission) from the New Testament and very little of the New Testament remains.
The "Church Fathers" are the historical record of apostasy that culminated in Western and Eastern Catholic churches. Those who originate or receive their ordinances from them are apostate as well - as who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean thing - not one! Not even God as he requires a "new" birth and ultimately a "new" heaven and earth. -
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
What I believe (NT churches have existed since the days of the Apostles) is different from what I have documentary evidence for.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
If you will note, I gave myself some wiggle room. I wrote, "from the days of the Apostles". I left the exact date nebulous, as good men (and women) disagree on the date. Some hold the founding of the New Testament ekklesia to be Matt 16:18. Others hold it to be Acts 2. And even others a mixture of these two. Your Mileage May Vary.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Squire Robertsson AdministratorAdministrator
Matt 16:18 is the key verse. With it Our Lord says His church will not go out of existence. He didn't say it would never exist in the shadows.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
“The Rev. C. H. Spurgeon gave notice of his withdrawal from the Baptist Union, by publication in his journal, The Sword and Trowel, for November, 1887, and in a letter to the Secretary of that body dated October 28th. As a reason for taking this step, he affirmed that the Union was tolerating error, and permitting a downward tendency of ministers in points of doctrine, in that some persons were allowed to remain in it who make light of the atonement, deny the personality of the Holy Ghost, call the fall of man a fable, speak slightingly of justification by faith, refuse credence to the dogma of the plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and hold that there is another probation after death, with possibilities of a future retribution of the lost. While efforts to induce him to reconsider his decision were without avail, be declared that he remained as much a Baptist as ever—his denominationalism not being affected by his relations with the Union, a voluntary, unofficial body. -
It had no effect in the United States, which by then was the major seat of Baptists, the English Baptists having dwindled considerably.
It was a big deal in England, whose small Baptist community was further rent by the Downgrade Controversy. http://www.spurgeon.org/downgrd.php
To this day folks will argue that Spurgeon's withdrawal from the Baptist Union hastened its slide and those who believe there was no way to maintain relations with liberal churches that denied basic doctrines. God only knows who is correct, but the stress may have hastened Spurgeon's death. -
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
We should all learn something every day, no matter our age. Thank you, Brother Glenn.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Bro. James Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
A short kibbitz regarding New Testament /church History: there are some out here who take the beginnings of New Testament Churches back to the shores of Galilee and Mt. 4:19, "Come follow me, I will make you fishers of men." This is Jesus calling out the apostles, the ekklesia, the called out for a purpose, long before Pentecost. The succession is not apostolic but rather from a Faith and Practice handed down in every generation even through today--whatever the name. See the Book of Jude. "...The Faith, once for all delivered to the saints."
The problem with Church History is trying to make it conform to the New Advent Encyclopedia. True Baptists never had anything to do with Rome nor her daughters. The Book of Acts shows the history as well as the faith and practice. A lot of folk seem to get seriously confused in Acts 2.
One does not need a ThD to understand.
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James