3 Views of Baptist Origins

“A Roundtable Discussion on Baptist Origins” in The Journal of Baptist Studies, Volume 3 (2009) contains articles representing three different historical views of the origin of Baptists.

• The Successionism View of Baptist History, by James R. Duval -- “There is an identity problem among present-day Baptists and the gulf seems to be widening.”
• The Spiritual Kinship Theory of Baptist Origins, by W. Glenn Jonas Jr -- “The spiritual kinship theory was a type of Baptist successionism although different than Landmarkism.”
• A Brief Defense of the English Separatist Origins of Modern Baptists, by James M. Renihan -- “The question of Baptist origins is like a carpet worn thin from more than a century of debate and discussion.”

The Great Commission

Appendix P from my Acts commentary, looking at the subject of “The Great Commission,” a theme running through the book of Acts.

APPENDIX P – THE GREAT COMMISSION

“The Great Commission” theological terminology subsumes the final commands of Jesus to his disciples as recorded in Matthew 28:18-20, Mark 16:15-16, Luke 24:46-49, John 20:21-23, and Acts 1:8. Bible students often consider Matthew’s account to be the most complete single statement of Jesus’s command. Therefore, teachers usually put it forward as the prime example. 

The four primary views of the extent of this command are:

• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as apostles (therefore only for apostolic times).
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as preachers (therefore incumbent upon preachers through the ages).
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as individual Christians (therefore incumbent on Christian individuals through the ages). 
• Jesus gave “The Great Commission” to the apostles, as officers and representatives of the church (therefore incumbent upon the church through the ages).

I have combined the first two views, and consider it under three headings.

To the apostles as either apostles or preachers

Most, if not all, agree that the apostles were present when Jesus gave the commands. Some conclude that only the apostles were present (e.g., Matthew 28:16 – “Then the eleven disciples went...”). Based on the latter understanding, one interpretation is that the “Commission” was given only to the apostles, as apostles – and therefore only for apostolic times.  The apostolic times recorded in Acts disputes this conclusion. While the apostles are in the forefront, other disciples – that is, other than the apostles – preach, baptize, teach, and even perform miracles. A study of the book of Acts should make note of such occasions. 

1. The scope of the commission is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men  – “teach all nations.” While the apostles fulfilled this to an extent in their lifetimes, Mark 16 makes it clear that the gospel is for “all the world” and “to every creature.”

2. The time of the commission is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men – “alway...until the end of the world.” Jesus does not command just the eleven. There is something bigger than and living beyond the eleven, based on the end of verse 20.

3. The act of baptizing herein commissioned is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men. The book of Acts tells of men who were not apostles who performed baptisms (Cf. Acts 8:12-13; 8:36-38; 9:5, 9, 18).

4. The act of teaching herein commissioned is broader than might be fulfilled by twelve men. Even in the days of the apostles, men who were not apostles evangelized and taught (Cf. Acts 6:9; 8:5, 35; 11:19, 22; 13:1; 18:24-26).

The Luke and Acts passages militate against the “apostles only” position. Luke 24:49 says they will be endued with power from on high, and Acts 1:8 states that they will be witnesses after the Holy Ghost comes upon them. Acts chapter 2 records the fulfillment of this. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, the promise of the Father, came not only upon the apostles, but also upon the entire church (cf. Acts 1:15; 2:1-4; they were all filled). The Holy Ghost came upon the assembled church and empowered them as witnesses to fulfill the given commission. The apostles (representing the church) were given the commission, and the church (as a church, not as individuals) were baptized in the power of the Holy Ghost.  Others in Acts took part in preaching and baptizing. Paul’s statement that “Christ sent me not to baptize” (I Corinthians 1:17) is hard to square with an “apostles only” commission or an individual commission.

To the apostles as individual Christians

Other Christians believe that Christ gave the Great Commission to individual Christians. In practical terms, this means any Christian can and should – independently and without any necessary reference to others or to the churches – commence to evangelize, baptize, and teach.

1. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may go independently and without regard to the churches. However, neither the Acts nor the rest of the New Testament endorses “unattached” Christians.

2. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may baptize converts indiscriminately. There is no evidence in the New Testament of such a practice in the early church.

3. If in the Great Commission Jesus directly commissions Christians as individuals, then all Christians may teach and instruct regardless of their status in or with a church, or with or without recognition by any churches. However, God sets the gift of preaching and teaching in the church, and the church recognizes God’s gift (I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 4:11).

The “individual” answer to this question bypasses the authority of the church and makes individuals authorities unto themselves. Even the individual apostles were set “in the church.” I Corinthians 12:28.

To the apostles as officers and representatives of the church

The Great Commission of Matthew 28:18-20 is a command fulfilled by local assemblies of believers. The task of the commission and the people of the task will last the length of time God promises it to last – “...I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world...”

1. The New Testament examples of fulfilling the commission points toward church authority rather than apostolic or individual authority. Other church representatives who were not apostles engaged in the evangelistic, baptizing, and educational ministries of the church. They were always visibly connected with other baptized believers.

2. The time period of the commission given expects a continuity through the time. The churches of the Lord provide that continuity.

The Holy Ghost came upon the assembled church and empowered them as witnesses to fulfill the given commission. Jesus gave the apostles (representing the church, Matthew 28) the commission, and the church (as a church, not as individuals; Acts 2) were baptized in the power of the Holy Ghost. The Lord Jesus Christ testified of his position of power and authority. He delegated authority to the church. The church has the authority to disciple – to preach, baptize, and teach as the Lord’s representatives.

Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. 

• Evangelizing all nations. Acts 17:26-27; 20:26-27
• Baptizing the evangelized. Acts 2:41; 8:12; 10:47-48
• Teaching the baptized (to observe all things). Acts 2:42; 18:11; 19:8-10

A collated commission of the Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts passages

Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. (And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them) Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained. 

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.  All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.  And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 

Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.  But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judæa, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Grimes-Allen Discussion. When?

By June 14, 1928 John Harvey Grime had published a new 71-page booklet title A Discussion Between J. H. Grime and James A. Allen. Grime was Baptist and Allen church of Christ (Campbellite), editor of The Gospel Advocate. In it they debated the origin, faith and practice of their respective churches.

The original discussion was published as periodical installments. Thomas N. Thrasher’s Encyclopedia of Religious Debates (Volume 2 E-L, 2016, p. 63) notes that the discussion appeared in two periodicals – The Baptist and Commoner (Little Rock, Arkansas) and The Gospel Advocate (Nashville, Tennessee). Volume LXIX, No. 47 (November 24, 1927, p. 1) of The Gospel Advocate carries the first affirmative of the Grime-Allen Discussion with this note, “This debate is running simultaneously in the Gospel Advocate and in the Baptist and Commoner, Little Rock, Ark.” In The Gospel Advocate it ran in six consecutive issues in November and December, and was likely then printed in a similar series of dates in The Baptist and Commoner. The book itself was not printed until 1928, with late Spring being a likely possibility.

The background of the discussion is this.

An April 9, 1925 article by Allen in the Nashville Banner included the statement that “when a man becomes a Methodist, a Baptist, a Presbyterian, etc., he becomes something more or less than a Christian,” that these were “human denominations,” and that only the church of Allen was New Testament Christianity. This drew a response from Grime.

In 1925, Grime and Allen engaged in correspondence, Grime desiring a written discussion and Allen an oral debate.

 In 1926 (“Preface” dated November 11, 1926) in Blood Before Water and Christ Before the Church, J. H. Grime writes about wanting a written discussion on the following propositions

“The church with which, I, J. H. Grime, am identified, or of which I am a member, known by my brethren as a Baptist Church, is scriptural in origin, doctrine, and practice.”

“The Church with which I am Identified, or of which I am a member, known to my brethren as the Church of Christ, is scriptural in origin, doctrine, and practice.”

In 1927, James A. Allen published Alias “Campbellism”: Review of “Blood Before Water and Christ Before the Church” by J. H. Grime – a booklet reviewing Grime’s booklet (“Introduction” dated July 14, 1927).

Apparently, after these events, Grime and Allen were able to agree on a discussion through two religious periodicals. By June 14, 1928, the material had been published in book form by J. H. Grime.

“New Books Reviewed” in The Baptist and Reflector includes a review of “A Discussion, between J. H. Grime and James A. Allen. Published by J. H. Grime, Lebanon, Tenn. $0.25.” The Baptist editor reviews the booklet very positively.

“This is a compilation of a discussion held recently by the Rev. J. H. Grime of Lebanon and James A. Allen of the Gospel Advocate. It is well arranged and show the two sides of a controversy that has been wages since the days of Alexander Campbell. Dr. Grime holds to the position that Baptists are the successors of apostolic Christians. He back his thesis with history, scripture, and sound logic. Dr. Allen presents the usual arguments for the disappearance of New Testament Christianity and its restoration during the first part of the nineteenth century.” The Baptist and Reflector, Thursday, June 14, 1928, p. 13.

The first page of the booklet reminds the reader “This Discussion Was First Published in Papers, And is Now Put in This Form.”

Worldcat.org and Abilene Christian University list this booklet as “Publisher not identified” and “Place of publication not identified.” This can be cleared up with the booklet itself and the The Baptist and Reflector review, which shows it is published by J. H. Grime, Lebanon, Tennessee. The date can also be ascertained – 1928. A Discussion Between J. H. Grime and James A. Allen could only have been published after the paper discussion was closed in December 1927, and the booklet was “new” in June 1928.

The title and writing on the cover follows:

A DISCUSSION

BETWEEN

J. H. GRIME (Baptist)

LEBANON, TENNESSEE

AND

JAMES A. ALLEN

(Editor Gospel Advocate)

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

PRICE 25 CENTS

Ephesians 2:20 and preservation of the Scriptures

Ephesians 2:20 and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

I apply the meaning of Ephesians 2:20 to the preservation of Scripture, and so have others. The foundation of New Testament Christianity rests on the writings of the apostles and prophets who represent the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord who preserves the churches preserves this foundation of it (e.g., Matthew 16:18). We no longer have apostles and prophets, but their teachings are preserved in the Scriptures and are our sole rule of faith and practice.

“Learn here...that nothing is to be regarded as a fundamental part of the Christian system, or as binding on the conscience, which cannot be found in the ‘prophets and apostles;’ that is, as it means here, in the Holy Scriptures.” -- Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

“Since apostles and prophets were both groups with a teaching role, it seems clear that what constitutes the church’s foundation is neither their person nor their office but their instruction. In practical terms this means that the church is built on the New Testament Scriptures.” -- John R. W. Stott, The Message of Ephesians: God’s New Society, Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1979, pp. 106-107

“When he says the foundation, he is talking about the revelation the apostles and the prophets were given which they gave to us in its written form. That is called the New Testament.” -- Ephesians 2:19-22 by Wayne Barber

Israel was succoured by the law, a written covenant. However, in their existence as a visible nation, they also depended on their being the progeny of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were ordered by a succession of the priests from Aaron, (and, later, also a succession of kings), and were planted in a geographical location given them by God. In contrast, the church is a spiritual creature of the word, built on the revelation of Jesus Christ and kept by it (Matthew 16:18). The local churches are visible, but as a kingdom, this nation (Matthew 21:43) does not have geographical borders (John 18:36), ancestral lines according to the flesh (Galatians 3:28-29), or hereditary offices (1 Peter 2:5-9). To lose the word is to lose the church. According to God’s promise and providence, both have been preserved. Bible succession is a necessary part of the Lord keeping his promise of Matthew 28:18-20, as well as for the church to fulfill the commission of Matthew 28:18-20, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.”

The Trail of Blood

Just recently read a recommendation of J. M. Carroll’s The Trail of Blood. It reminded of some thoughts I have had on the booklet, which I see I have never included at “Seeking the Old Paths.”

James Milton Carroll (January 8, 1852 – January 10, 1931) was born in Monticello, Arkansas, the son of Benajah and Mary Eliza Carroll. His father was a Baptist preacher. So was his better-known older brother, Benajah Harvey (B. H.) Carroll.

J. M. Carroll was a Baptist pastor, author, and educator. He was an amateur ornithologist, and reputedly owned one of the largest collections of bird eggs in the state of Texas. Carroll founded the Education Commission of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. He was a founder and the first president of San Marcos Baptist Academy. He served as president of both Oklahoma Baptist University and Howard Payne University.

In addition to his well-known book The Trail of Blood,[i] he compiled several other books, including Texas Baptist Statistics (1896), A History of Texas Baptists, B. H. Carroll, The Colossus of Baptist History, The Eternal Safety and Security of all Blood Bought Believers, and Just Such a Time: Recollections of Childhood on the Texas Frontier, 1858-1867. Carroll died in Fort Worth, Texas, and is buried at the San Jose Burial Park in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas.

The Trail of Blood is neither “academic” nor comprehensive. It is a book for the Baptist people; a booklet to put iron in Baptist blood. The booklet is a compilation of notes of five lectures that J. M. Carroll gave on church history. J. W. Porter encouraged Carroll to prepare a manuscript for publication. He died before the book was produced, and Porter brought it out after his death. (However, letters between Carroll and the Baptist Sunday School Board indicate that he sought to have them print it several years prior to this. See, “The Dead End Trail,” Harrison, pp. 58-62.)

The thesis of The Trail of Blood is that there has been a continuation of biblical teachings and a succession of biblical churches from the time of Christ to the present. J. M. Carroll believes this succession was always Baptist in principle, if not in name.[ii] These churches stood outside of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches, refused to accept their legitimacy in either faith or practice, rejected infant baptism, and practiced believers’ baptism by immersion.[iii]

In modern times, The Trail of Blood has become something of a “whipping boy” for those who deny the premise that Baptists (or baptistic churches) existed in all ages from the time of the New Testament. James Edward McGoldrick produced a book titled Baptist Successionism, somewhat of a response to Carroll’s work. He writes:

Since The Trail of Blood appears to remain the most widely circulated expression of the successionist interpretation, this study will, with the exception of the Bogomils and the intriguing question about St. Patrick, be confined to those sects cited by Carroll. (pp. 3-4)

To date [1994] no one has produced a point-by-point reply to The Trail of Blood... (p. 149)

Since the time of McGoldrick’s work, there are a number of internet refutations of The Trail of Blood.[iv]

It is much easier to critique a little booklet of 50 or so pages than to take on critiquing Joseph Ivimey’s 4-volume A History of the English Baptists; the almost 600-page Baptist History: From the Foundations of the Christian Church to the Close of the Eighteenth Century, by John Mockett Cramp, President of Acadia College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia; the two-volume A History of the Baptists, by John Tyler Christian, Professor of Church History at the Baptist Bible Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana (later renamed the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary); or any of the large new works on Baptist perpetuity.

The Trail of Blood is a little booklet with which I have been familiar for as long as I can remember. At times in the past, I have included it in packets given to new church members. On the one hand, I believe Carroll errs in identifying some groups as Baptists or baptistic when they cannot be positively demonstrated as such. Some of this history is shrouded in too much mystery to determine at this late date whether all of these anabaptist anti-paedobaptist groups were most assuredly Baptist in faith and practice.[v] Curiously, however, those quickest to condemn Carroll for identifying heretical groups as Baptists are often those who will reject almost no modern Baptists as heretics (and therefore not Baptist), whatever freakish things they believe. I guess it is only heretics of the past who can’t be Baptists, and not those we know to be heretics in the present!

On the other hand, even if Carroll may have misidentified some, he got others right. While some may suffer in our eyes because of insufficient evidence, there is sufficient evidence to identify them as persecuted and despised. I believe there is merit in remembering that Christians who simply tried to follow the principles of the Bible (whether Baptist or not) often left a “trail of (a lot of) blood” let by their persecutors who held the power of state.[vi]

One final point and I close. J. M. Carroll was an ecclesiological “Landmarker.” Nevertheless, the position of Carroll on Baptist succession is not solely a Landmark view, as some modern anti-Landmarkers would attempt to pigeonhole it. It has been held by many Baptists, including non-Landmarker Charles Spurgeon and anti-Landmarker R. B. C. Howell. It was once the dominant Baptist historical view before the modern critical views of the late times. That in itself does not make it right, no more than the current dominant English Separtist view’s majority status makes it right. It does indicate, however, it is not merely a “Landmark” view of Baptist history.

---

[i] The full title is The Trail of Blood, Following the Christians Down through the Centuries. The History of Baptist Churches from the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day. Note this especially in reference to those who claim that Landmarkers believe John the Baptist started the church. Carroll calls Jesus Christ Their Founder.
[ii] I agree with the doctrine of church perpetuity, church successionism, or “Baptists in all ages.” I believe Jesus promised to build and be with his church and has kept that promise through the ages of time to the present. I love history, and I love the Lord’s churches. However, I think the “trail of faith,” often identified by the “trail of blood” those of that faith left, is not historically demonstrable at all times from the first century to today. Sometimes the stream flows underground, so to speak, moving forward and onward, while not visible to the human historians’ eyes. As a doctrine, church perpetuity stands or falls on the infallible word of God rather than the fallible record of human historians.
[iii] In his introduction to The Trail of Blood, Clarence Walker noted that Carroll’s research for the truth “led him into many places and enabled him to gather one of the greatest libraries on church history. This library was given at his death to the Southwestern Baptist Seminary, Ft. Worth, Texas.”
[iv] A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail, by Chris Traffanstedt is apparently considered one of the primary online answers to The Trail of Blood. The Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius Baptist succession quote has been regularly dismissed as illegitimate. However, pastor historian Thomas Ross has discovered the source of this quote. He has written about it HERE and HERE. Even though The Trail of Blood is just a popular work, because of its great popularity as well as its voluminous critiques, there is need for an annotated edition; it could correct citations, add citations, and acknowledge where there are citations that cannot be substantiated.
[v] I just read a “refutation” of Carroll in which a Greek Orthodox “proves” that most of Carroll’s succession groups were Gnostics. Intriguingly, though, in doing so he admits the existence of one group (the Waldensians) that held views “like those of baptists today” and then acknowledges them back to the 4th century and up to the 16th century, when he mentions the rise of the Anabaptists, whose views are “similar to the baptist views now.” While he falls short of admitting these are direct predecessors of the Baptists, he nevertheless shows that a Baptist succession would not necessarily even need, at least after the 4th century forward, any of the groups that he identifies as Gnostics! (In mentioning that this writer views Montanists, Donatists, Paulicians, etc., as Gnostics, I am not admitting he is right. I have found this history too mixed up to sort it out, and do not agree that this writer has done so either.)
[vi] Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and van Braght’s Martyr’s Mirror demonstrate this point in great detail.

Baptist Views of the Origin of the Church

In May of 2013 I posted on Seeking the Old Paths The Origin of the Church. This is a discussion of various and conflicting views that Baptists hold concerning when the Church first began. Intending to pass it along to someone, I noticed some formatting problems and other errors. In (hopefully) fixing them, I have decided to post it again. I have added new links and fixed broken ones.

-------

In his book The Doctrine of the Church, Kenneth Good divides the different origin of the church theories into three main categories.[i] These are:

1. Covenant view. The church begins with Abraham, or some even go back to Adam.
2. Dispensational view. The church begins with the ministry of Christ, either before or at Pentecost.
3. Ultra-dispensational view. The church does not begin until the ministry of Paul.

Covenant view

Reformed/Covenant Theology teaches (with some variation in details) that the church is made up of the elect of all ages, and therefore the church must have begun with the first person who was saved. This is the common view, although some begin the church with the nation Israel.

Dispensational view

1. The Church began with John the Baptist or at some time during the Lord’s earthly ministry.
2. The Church began on the day of Pentecost, specifically on the first Pentecost after Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection.

Ultra-Dispensational view

The Church began after Pentecost (some say in Acts 13 and others in Acts 28).

In his book Churches and The Church, John R. Rice divides the theories of the origin of the church in a different way than Good. He sees “three principal and important theories.”[ii]

1. At Pentecost.
2. In the lifetime of Jesus.
3. When the first soul was saved.

It is simpler and more representative of various views to divide the theories chronologically rather than theologically, as does Good. This in needful because some, such as Rice, hold an early chronological origin of “the church” while approaching the Bible generally from a pre-tribulational pre-millennial interpretation rather than Covenant Theology. Such an approach can yield five principal theories.

• When the first soul was saved.
• With the Abrahamic covenant.
• In the earthly ministry of Jesus.
• On the first Pentecost after Jesus crucifixion.
• Under the apostolic ministry of Paul.

When the first soul was saved

After relegating other views’ origins to “a misunderstanding of the word church,” Rice writes:

“When, then, did this body, this household of God, this holy temple which is now growing by the addition of every convert—when did this body, the church, begin?
“I suppose it would be when the first living stone was laid on the foundation. And that first stone, I suppose, was Adam who, cast out of the Garden of Eden for his sin, surely looked to God for mercy. Does not that coat of skin, which God made to hide Adam’s nakedness and Eve’s, picture the righteousness of God which covers the poor, naked sinner? If so, then Adam was saved, and became the first living stone built upon Christ, the foundation stone. Or if it were not Adam, then perhaps it was righteous Abel...”[iii]

C. H. Spurgeon’s view agrees with Rice, though he approaches the subject and arrives at his conclusion differently. Noting there is “Only One Covenant of Grace” Spurgeon writes:

“Surely, beloved brethren, you ought not to stumble at the anachronism of comprising Abraham, David and others, in the fellowship of the Church! If you can understand how we, who live under the present economy and, unlike those Jews, have never been circumcised, are nevertheless accounted the true circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, and not in the flesh, you can have very little difficulty in perceiving that those Old Testament saints, who were participators in the faith of Christ’s death and resurrection, were verily baptized into Him according to the Spirit. Neither time nor circumcision founded the faith of Abraham. He rejoiced to see Messiah’s day; and he saw it and was glad. He believed in God who ‘Calleth those things that be not as though they were.’ It were well for us to walk in the footsteps of the same faith.”[iv]

With the Abrahamic covenant

Beginning the church with the Abrahamic covenant is a common part of Protestant “Covenant Theology.” I have not found Baptists who move within Covenant Theology – which posits continuity between the covenants and “churches” of the Old Testament and New Testament – make a clear statement on when the church began.[v] But this idea of continuity possibly puts them in the camp of believing the church starts with God’s promise to Abraham. They would acknowledge themselves as the true heirs of the “Old Testament church” since the people of God are essentially one. Consider the statement of Richard C. Barcellos:

“The Reformed Credos then say, ‘Now let us look at our New Testaments. What we should see is the inauguration of the same New Covenant promised in the Old Testament, one New Covenant community (not Israel and the Church but a transformed or New Israel, which consists of those only who know the Lord) and New Covenant privileges given to New Covenant citizens only.’ In others words, the Reformed Credos say that the Old Testament doctrine of the New Covenant prophetically rescinds automatic infant inclusion and the New Testament bears the fruit of that by reserving New Covenant ordinances to New Covenant citizens, that is, believers, those who are of faith, the seed of Abraham, all who know the Lord...It is interesting to note that in Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11, he makes a distinction between Israels (Romans 9:6). In other words, within Old Covenant Israel there were two groups: believers and unbelievers. All of the Israelites considered here by Paul were covenant members, however, the majority were cut off after Christ inaugurated the New Covenant. Why? Because of their unbelief. Why were others (Gentiles) grafted in? Because of their belief. Here we see both covenantal continuity and discontinuity. The believing Jews went from being Old Covenant citizens to New Covenant citizens—continuity; and the unbelieving Jews went from being Old Covenant citizens to those who were cut off—discontinuity.”[vi]

In the earthly ministry of Jesus

Ben Bogard and B. H. Carroll represent Baptists who believe the church started sometime within the ministry of Jesus Christ while on earth. All “before Pentecost” theorists may not pinpoint the beginning exactly the same as another, but they nevertheless agree on a beginning in this period and before the day of Pentecost.

“When our Lord established His church He declared He would build it up, edify it, enlarge it, and the gates of hell should not prevail against it. (Matt. 16:18) The Greek word ‘oikodomeso,’ in Matt. 16:18, translated ‘will build’ means ‘will build up,’ ‘enlarge,’ ‘edify.’  His church was already in existence when He uttered these words, as can be proved by numerous passages, hence we are forced to so under this passage.”[vii]

“Was the church instituted, established, or organized on this Pentecost? There is not a syllable on that in Acts 2. Christ instituted the church. He established it in the days of his flesh. The church was this day accredited – received its credentials. It was a house complete, but empty. It then received its Inhabitant, but the church was not instituted, nor established, nor organized on this Pentecost.”[viii]

On the first Pentecost after Jesus’ crucifixion

Billy Graham’s comment summarizes an origins view that is held by many Baptists:

“To summarize, it is my belief that Pentecost instituted the Church. Then all that remained was for Samaritans, Gentiles and ‘belated believers’ to be brought into the Church representatively. This occurred in Acts 8 for Samaritans, Acts 10 for Gentiles (according to Acts 11:15), and Acts 19 for belated believers from John’s baptism. Once this representative baptism with the Spirit had occurred, the normal pattern applied—baptism with the Spirit at the time each person (of whatever background) believed on Jesus Christ.”[ix]

“We believe that all who are united to the risen and ascended Son of God are members of the church which is the body and bride of Christ, which began at Pentecost and is completely distinct from Israel. Its members are constituted as such regardless of membership or non-membership in the organized churches of earth. We believe that by the same Spirit all believers in this age are baptized into, and thus become, one body that is Christ’s, whether Jews or Gentiles, and having become members one of another, are under solemn duty to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, rising above all sectarian differences, and loving one another with a pure heart fervently.”[x]

The House Mountain Church’s Doctrinal Statement above provides further detail, while H. C. Thiessen succinctly states:

“The Church was born in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost with 3,000 converts.”[xi]

Under the apostolic ministry of Paul

I have not yet found any Baptists who believe what some consider the “ultra-dispensational” view of the origin of the church, such as held by Charles Baker or E. W. Bullinger.[xii] Perhaps such a view leads one away from Baptist ecclesiology and does not exist among Baptists.

Multiple dates

For others, the date of the origin of the church may not distinctly matter. Or, in some cases, an individual may posit different origins for different “churches”. In other words, one might think the New Testament church (congregation as an organization) begins in the Gospels, while holding that the church as a body of redeemed persons began in the Old Testament or on the day of Pentecost. Notice David F. Reagan sees one origin for the local church, and another for the universal church:

“When did the Church Begin?...it depends on what you mean by the church. The institution of the local church obviously existed during the ministry of Christ, else how could He give the advice to "tell it unto the church" (Matthew 18:17)? However, if you refer to the body of Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23) that includes all believers in heaven and in earth, this probably began after Christ left this world and sent the Comforter—the Holy Ghost—for it is the Spirit that places us into the body of Christ as per 1 Corinthians 12:13.”[xiii]

Conclusion

Baptists disagree on when the church originated. Some of this emanates from a disagreement on what the church is. Their theories of church origins can be helpfully understood within the five categories discussed above, to sort and clarify their understandings. These points and quotes above do not exhaust the possibilities of beliefs that Baptists hold on the time of the origin of the church. Nevertheless, these categories listed above address the major viewpoints.

---

[i] The Doctrine of the Church, Kenneth Good, pp. 37-38

[ii] Churches and the Church: a Convincing, Scriptural Study, John R. Rice, p. 23

[iii] Churches and the Church, John R. Rice, pp. 23-24

[iv] “Old Testament Saints: Members of the Church,” From Sword and Trowel, March, 1867. Since the answer to the paper’s correspondent contains no signature, the response is presumably by the editor, C. H. Spurgeon. Concerning dispensations, he says, “…however various they may have been, His covenant has endured the same through them all. It is a mere truism that Abel was not circumcised, that Noah did not observe the Passover, and Abraham was not baptized.” [Accessed 8 January 2018]

[v] This certainly does not mean they do not exist.

[vi] Paedoism or Credoism? A Reformed Baptist Argument for Believers’ Baptism Based on Covenant Theology, Richard C. Barcellos, a pastor at Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA

[vii] The Baptist Way-Book, Ben M. Bogard, p. 30

[viii] An Interpretation of the English Bible, Volume 12, Acts, B. H. Carroll [Accessed 8 January 2018]

[ix] The Holy Spirit, Billy Graham, Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 1978

[x] Doctrinal Statement of House Mountain Baptist Church, Corryton, Tennessee [Accessed in March 2013, but that statement no longer appears online; I have since noticed this is the doctrinal statement on the church of the Dallas Theological Seminary. Another Baptist Church using this statement is Emmanuel Baptist Church in Laurel, Maryland (Accessed 8 Jan 2018).]

[xi] Introduction to the New Testament, H. C. Thiessen, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans. 1955, p. 136

[xii] This lack of knowledge does not mean they do not exist..

[xiii] When did the Church Begin? David F. Reagan, Antioch Baptist Church, Knoxville, Tennessee [Accessed 27 March 2013]