What others say about Baptist origins

Voices from historians and others in different groups within the Baptist denomination show the similarities and differences of Baptists on their origins

John Smyth early English General Baptist (1600s): "I deny all succession except in the truth ...There is no succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from heaven."1

A Confession of Faith of certain English people, living at Amsterdam: "That there is no succession in the outward church, but that all the succession is from heaven, and that the new creature only hath the thing signified, and substance, whereof the outward church and ordinances are shadows (Col. ii. 16, 17), and therefore he alone hath power, and knoweth right, how to administer in the outward church, for the benefit of others..."

John Spilsbury, early English Particular Baptist (1600s): "There is no succession under the New Testament, but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God."

John Spittlehouse and John More, early English Baptists (1600s): "But that you declared the very truth in so saying (though not wittingly) I shall prove further from Scripture, where Jesus Christ promises to be with it to the end of the world, Matt. 28:20. Ergo, It was to have a continuance unto the end of the world. And if so, then during the aforesaid time of 1260 years. Again, If continued a Church, then in all the Essentials, Substantials, and Circumstantials that appertained unto it, (so far as there was need of, in its then condition) as aforesaid. Again, I would gladly know any one Church (in that which we now call Christendom) that can produce the like hidden condition, as the Church now scandalously termed Anabaptists. And much more in that it is so clearly discovered to be so near, yea even one and the same with the Pattern of the first Church that was erected by the commands of Jesus Christ, and the practice of the Apostles." -- from A Vindication of the continued succession...

Adam Taylor, historian of the English General Baptists: "But we may be permitted to state a few facts, which will prove that, in all ages of the church, there have been Baptists, who have heartily joined with the first Baptist, John, in pointing sinners 'to the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world'." (Taylor, History of the English General Baptists).

Charles H. Spurgeon, English Baptist preacher (1800s): "We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and 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. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents." -- As cited on The Reformed Reader

Ollie Latch, General Baptist, History of the General Baptists: "Many interesting, but profitless labors have been expended in times past to the tracing of Baptist churches back through the historical lag of the centuries (p. 1)." "The stream of Baptist history shows clearly that all Baptist movements have had their stem in the work of Smyth and Helwys (p. 75)."

John T. Christian, Southern Baptist, A History of the Baptists: "I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time (pp. 5, 6)."

William Wright Barnes, Southern Baptist, in The Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Vol. I -- Baptists originated with John Smyth and Thomas Helwys (p. 135).

R. G. Lee, Southern Baptist: "...all Christians today should believe that Baptists began their denominational life under the ministry of Jesus." (tract "Perpetuity of Baptist Churches" by Abington, cited in The Southern Baptist Convention by Fletcher)

J. S. Newman, Primitive Baptist, The Baptists in All Ages: "Any church that can be traced back to some man as its originator is not the 'one church' of the New Testament. It is said by a man inspired (Dan. 2:44) that the church was set up by the God of heaven and that it 'shall never be destroyed' and it 'shall stand forever.'...As the church was established upon Jesus as its foundation, and as it cannot be moved, destroyed, prevailed against, and must stand forever, we have positive proof that the one church has been in existence ever since the days of those kings (p. 2)."

Michael Ivey, Primitive Baptist, A Welsh Succession of Primitive Baptist Faith and Practice: "They embraced the Old, primitive Baptist creed, which is the word of God, the only rule of faith and practice. They joined or affiliated themselves with churches whose unbroken succession of authorized baptism and true faith is traced back to Christ."

Roy Dearmore, Independent Baptist, Biblical Missions: "Unaffiliated Baptist churches have existed continuously, carrying out the great commission, since the founding of the first Baptist Church (Baptist in doctrine and practice) by Christ in Jerusalem about 26 A.D." (Preface)

Chris Traffanstedt, Reformed Baptist, A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail: "Let us start with the basic premise about Baptist history: the modern Baptist denomination originated in England and Holland in the early seventeenth century."

1. It is always good to review the context of the statements, as well as any modifications or changes the persons may have made in their positions. E.g., John Smyth became dissatisfied with his baptism and applied to the Waterlander Mennonites, evidently as he thought, as those who had (or possibly had) church succession. (e.g. Christian, Ch. 16 "The difficulty in the mind of Smyth was...the proper succession.")

Continuation of Baptist churches or baptistic principles

The continuation theories of Baptist origins address when Baptists came into existence, but also delve into hypotheses of how the Baptists continued from the beginning to the present. Continuationist theories hold in common that there have been successive groups of baptized believers from the time of the New Testament to the present – or at least a continuation of the New Testament faith.

Identified in our views of Baptist origins outline are two categories, with appropriate subdivisions: (1) Continuation of biblical teachings and (2) Succession of Baptist churches. I have further tried to link these continuationist views with William Wright Barnes' identification of four views of succession.

Unlike the restoration theories, each of which gain their distinction from the other based on when the Baptists started, continuation theories agree that the Baptists (or the Baptist faith) began with Jesus Christ. The distinctions in the continuation theories are primarily theological and theoretical matters (rather than historical), disagreeing on details of how the Baptist faith passed from the days of the New Testament to the present.

The theory of a continuation of Biblical teachings appears to agree with Barnes' "spiritual succession". The continuation of Biblical principles theory views the continuity in a more indirect fashion than the linear thinking of the continuation of Baptist churches theory. Advocates do not claim a succession of Baptist churches, but rather that the faith and practice now identified with the modern Baptists existed from the time of Christ to the present. Nathan Finn describes it this way "...often the claim is made that there has been a perpetuity of Baptist principles, which cannot necessarily be historically verified by looking at a succession of churches, but nevertheless is accepted by faith." This view often finds "spiritual kinship" between baptistic groups throughout history without identifying them as Baptists. It emphasizes the principles rather than the people. Somewhere on a blog I can't locate right now, Ben Stratton observed that it would be odd to have a continuation of Biblical teachings without some people who held and taught those teachings (sorry, Ben, if my memory of your statement isn't too exact).

I subdivided the Succession of Baptist churches viewpoint. Once again, this is not to indicate a disagreement over when the Baptists started, but a theoretical/theological difference over how Baptists churches are perpetuated. The difference therefore in categorizing "church perpetuity" and "chain-link succession" is the difference of how the Baptist faith was transmitted. Chain-link succession requires some sort of organizational succession from one church to the next (kind of like a relay runner handing off a baton). It may be viewed as church succession (succession of church organizations); apostolic succession (succession of valid ordinations); baptismal succession (succession of valid baptisms); or even a combination of all three.

Though he mistakenly calls it Landmarkism, Tom Ascol succeeds in defining a baptismal chain-link succession as "a particular view of baptist origins that requires a certain kind of historical succession in order for present baptist expressions of church to be valid. In the case of baptism it would argue that only those are properly baptized who have been baptized by a proper administrator, who himself has been baptized by a proper administrator, who himself...(you get the picture)." -- Recommendations and observations on the attempt to remove a conservative IMB trustee "Apostolic" succession requires a succession of valid ordinations. Many older Baptist associational articles of faith require a valid ordination for administering the ordinances (See Sandlick District Association of Virginia, for example). A recently coined terminology -- Essential Mother-Daughter Authority -- describes one popular church succession view of chain-link succession which mandates that a Baptist Church (daughter church) may only come into existence by the vote of an existing Baptist Church (mother church).

Church perpetuity and chain-link succession share more similarities than differences, so much so that some would dispute listing them separately. It might be argued that chain-link succession is a systematized form of church perpetuity. Baptist church perpetuity, in its simpler forms, is not concerned with the details of how the church continued from the New Testament times to the present, but with the fact that it did. Some Baptists who hold the idea of church perpetuity outright reject the concept of a chain-link succession. This creates a difference in polity of church organization. For example, many who hold Baptist church perpetuity (but reject chain-link succession) believe a group of baptized believers can come together and organize themselves into a Baptist congregation, with no need of a "mother church" vote or authority.

According to Philip Bryan, "The oldest and most generally accepted theory of Baptist origins has been the successionist theory." -- A Critique of the English Separatist Descent Theory in Baptist Historiography Chapter I, Theories of Baptist Origins I do not have data on this, but it is definitely my impression that until the 20th century, ideas of a "Baptist faith" perpetuated from the days of Christ was the prevailing view of both Baptist historians and rank-and-file Baptists.

Bryan also writes, "William Morgan Patterson...has concluded that successionist writers wrote from an apologetical and polemical approach and that their conclusions were based upon a priori reasoning and not scientific methodology." The expected promise of continuation/continuity/perpetuity is believed based on passages such as Matthew 16:18 ("...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [my church]"); Matthew 28:20 ("I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world"); and Ephesians 3:21 ("glory in the church...throughout all ages"). Patterson is correct in stating that these theories are founded on a priori reasoning -- if he means a belief held before the fact of historical research. These theories are not historically driven; they are "a-historical" in the sense that they begin with the Bible rather than historical research. They are Biblical theologies of the church that rest on Biblical exegesis and interpretation. This doesn't invalidate their historical research or conclusions, any more than scientific research is invalid because the researcher believes in creation. It does cause non-successionists to view them with suspicion -- especially in the case of polemical writings.

Possible implications of this view
Baptist polity – Since continuity does exist, a new Baptist church is formed with some connection to prior baptism, ordination or church authority.
Baptist history -- Baptist history begins with Jesus Christ forming His church during His personal ministry on earth, and continues to the present – whether seen or unseen, known or unknown.
Baptist identity -- Baptist identity is based on the basic faith and practice of New Testament Christianity. A "true church" is one which holds this faith and is part of this historical continuity.1

Shared elements
The continuation of Biblical principles theory shares with multiple origins the idea of theological/spiritual kinship of various unconnected groups who have been a part of the continuity of New Testament faith and practice.2
With restoration, continuation shares the element that Baptists have some sense of continuity (whether for 400 or 500 years, or 2000).
As noted in Tuesday’s post, the Converging streams or multiple origins view may share some elements with succession. A theological conservative holding a multiple origins view agrees with continuation theorists that Baptist identity is based on the faith and practice of New Testament Christianity (though they may not agree on exactly what the that faith and practice is).

1. A "true church" movement is any church or group within Christianity that claims to exclusively represent the true faith and order of Jesus Christ and His apostles. Many "true church" groups assert this only in reference to their church doctrines, polity, and practice (e.g., the ordinances). Primitive Baptists, Landmark Baptists and the Church of God in Christ, Mennonite, for example, believe they are successors in a line of true churches linked back to the first century. A few denominations go further, holding that they [their denomination] are the only true Christians. The "Spurling/Tomlinson" Church of God, the Stone-Campbell restoration movement, and some others represent a variation in which the "true church" apostatized and was restored, in distinction to the idea of apostolic or church succession. [Note: this last paragraph will sound like Wikipedia because it is a revision of something I wrote for an article there.]

2. In Philip Bryan's opinion "...what Torbet has called the 'Anabaptist kinship' theory is actually what Barnes has included as a succession theory: 'spiritual succession'." He further notes that "...Patterson has included the 'spiritual kinship' theory as a variation of the 'successionist' theory" in "A Critique of the Successionist Concept in Baptist Historiography," Th.D. dissertation, Baylor University, Waco, 1956.

This day in 1612

Since this is "time specific" and I've had it saved awhile, I'm breaking into the "Baptist origins" series with something a little different. Perhaps y'all need a break anyway. The post below in based on the Wikipedia entry for Edward Wightman, part of which I wrote:

Edward Wightman (1566 - 1612) has the peculiar distinction of being the last person in England to be executed for heresy by burning at the stake.

In 1611, Wightman presented a petition of his beliefs to King James. For his trouble, he was tried and found guilty of heresy. He was given the sentence of death on December 14, 1611. The charges against him included that he believed "the baptizing of infants is an abominable custom; that the Lord's Supper and baptism are not to be celebrated as they now are in the Church of England; and that Christianity is not wholly professed and preached in the Church of England, but only in part." These charges were doubtless true, and many wild charges were added to them. Some contemporaries said that if Edward Wightman held all the opinions he was accused of, he would have been either an idiot or a madman. Further, they added, if true, he ought to have had sympathy rather than a cruel death.

Wightman was tied to the stake and his body burned on April 11, 1612. In that same year Thomas Helwys wrote A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity, a plea for religious liberty in England. 1

A few were executed for religious reasons after Wightman, but he was the last person to be burned at the stake in England.

1. Search "Google Books" for Helwys' "Mystery of Iniquity". I think you will find it is a free book you can read online.

Restoration views of Baptist origins

In my opinion, Spontaneous origination centers on how a Baptist church may come into existence. The continuation and restoration theories of Baptist origins, while they may also address how, both purport to address when Baptists came into existence.

Restorationist theories hold in common that there have not been successive groups of baptized believers from the time of the New Testament to the present. Conservative Baptists who hold this type of theory reject a historical continuity of Baptist churches or Baptist believers, but nevertheless believe that the Baptist faith is built on New Testament principles. As Nathan Finn writes, "...theological conservatives who hold to the post-apostolic origins of modern Baptists agree with continuationists that New Testament Christianity was baptistic." More ecumenically-oriented theological moderates who agree with conservatives on the late origins theory of the Baptists may nevertheless vary widely on the nature of the Baptist faith. Tim Bonney, addressing this in an internet forum, states, "While Baptists hope to model ourselves off of New Testament practices, we are no more the New Testament church than the Methodists, Presbyterians, or any other reformation or radical reformation related denomination." This view really seems to reject the idea that there is any particular New Testament identity or polity to "restore".

In our views of Baptist origins outline, I identified three sub-groups that I believe fit this restoration category -- Outgrowth of English Separatism, Influence of Anabaptists, and Converging streams (or multiple origins).

According to the Outgrowth of English Separatism view, the Baptists grew out of a Separatist movement in the Church of England. In this view, the Anabaptists' influence upon early Baptists is considered from minimal to non-existent. Within this camp there are variations as to the exact point of Baptist beginning. For some it is traced to 1609, when John Smyth, Thomas Helwys and others embraced believer's baptism. For others in this camp, the Baptist denomination does not start until 1641, when certain English Separatists accepted immersion as the mode of baptism. William H. Whitsitt of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY pioneered this viewpoint in the late 1800s. The English Separatist view of Baptist origins is currently the most widely accepted view of Baptist origins, and has been (at least in the academic community) for about a century. Writers holding this viewpoint include William H. Whitsitt, Winthrop S. Hudson, and H. Leon McBeth.

According to the Influence of Anabaptists view, some of the early English Baptists were influenced by some Anabaptists. This view holds that the direct origin of Baptists was from English Separatism, but that this origin was influenced by earlier Continental Anabaptism and contact with the Dutch Mennonites, Collegiants, etc. Writers holding this viewpoint include A. H. Newman and William R. Estep. Though marginalized by the English Separatist theory's dominance, interest in the Anabaptists' influence on the rise of the English Baptists is making a comeback. The title of the first article in Truett Seminary's Journal of Church and Mission, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Spring 2006) hints of some of that interest: "Contemporary Anabaptists Historiography and Theology and the Broadening of Baptist Identity" (by Rady Roldan-Figueroa).

According to the Converging streams or multiple origins view,1 the Baptists owe their rise to multiple converging factors. Nathan Finn explains it this way: "Think of the Baptist tradition as a great river, like the Amazon. Into that river flows a number of tributaries. These tributaries are separate from each other and are not themselves the river but they feed into the river. Once they flow into the river, they create something that is related to them in some respects but at the same time is entirely different; the river is the sum of all its tributaries. This is what I would argue happened with 17th century Baptists–they were a totally new movement (river) influenced to varying degrees by a number of other movements (tributaries)." It is possible that some might argue for this view as a main category among views of Baptist origins. I chose to place Converging streams under restoration theories based on its shared elements with the other two restoration theories. This idea seems to be fairly new and in its growth stages. So it remains to be seen what role it will play in the future of Baptist historiography. John T. Christian, well-known successionist historian, seems to indicate that some idea of multiple origins is compatible with his brand of successionism: "It must be borne in mind that there are many sources of Church History...For example it is undoubtedly true that the Waldenses originated in the West and the Paulicans in the East, and that they had a different history. In later centuries they came in contact one with the other, but in origin they were diverse. Any effort to treat them as one and the same people is misleading. In my judgment both parties were Baptists. The above distinction will account for many minor differences, and even today these sources will be found coloring Baptist history." (A History of the Baptists, by John T. Christian, Vol. I, Preface)

Renewed interest in Anabaptist role in Baptist origins may be influenced by several things, from ecumenical interests to renewed historical interests to anti-Calvinistic bias. For an example of the first, "Any conclusion reached on this matter will have significant ecumenical implications, for one’s position can indicate how one views other denominations. Reestablishing lost ties with Anabaptist roots will accomplish much in bringing the believers of the 'free churches' into a closer unity. The evidence cited in this essay ought to be enough to concede that the Anabaptist influence cannot be dismissed. With this clear foundation, Baptists can enter the ecumenical dialogue well aware of their history, their origins, and their modern kin in the Christian world." (General Baptist Roots in the Radical Reformation: an examination of a vexing question, by Eric Barreto). But ecumenical interests also have influence on the other views. For example, Winthrop S. Hudson felt the need to view Baptists as Separatist Puritans rather than Anabaptists "if unnecessary obstacles are not to be placed in the way of ecumenical discussions". (W. S. Hudson, "The Ecumenical Spirit of Early Baptists," in the Review and Expositor, LV (April, 1958), 182-95)

An influence on the thinking in this area is the rising Calvinistic and Reformed movements in the Southern Baptist Convention and among other Baptists. Opposition to this rising Calvinism might encourage some to find Baptist antecedents to the Calvinistic English Particular Baptists. Promotion of this Calvinism might encourage some to overemphasize the influence of the Calvinistic English Baptists. (Personally, I would find it hard to say we could overemphasize them, since they are our direct ancestors. But an inordinate affection could cause people to stop their study at that point with no interest in any antecedents whom they fear might hold some "skeletons in the Calvinistic closet".)

Lastly, a nod and a nudge to the rise of the scientific movement in historical research, which helped install the English Separatism view as the foremost view of Baptist history for a century. Prior to the "scientific movement" and the work of William H. Whitsitt, much supposed "history" of the Baptists might well be considered sectarian promotionalism. Whitsitt's question, though it aggravated many, served to send Baptist historians looking for original documents as opposed to relying on secondary sources and repeating what others had said. A down-side of the "scientific method" is that it must of necessity not consider the supernatural -- the movement of God in history. Its restriction to observation assumes no outside forces at work in history, and works from a naturalistic secularistic mentality. This is more than the Christian historian can accept. Another down-side is its touted lack of bias, when that is not necessarily the case. In his dissertation investigating the historiography of Whitsitt, Christian and Newman, Donald Cureton points out that Whitsitt's objectivity could have been clouded by his "excessive desire for reputation" as an original discoverer, and the fact that he was a soldier in the war against Landmarkism. (pp. 95-96)

Possible implications of this view
Baptist polity -- Though antecedents may exist, there is no need of prior baptism, ordination or church authority to form a new Baptist church.
Baptist history -- Baptist history begins with particular groups of believers adopting believers' baptism.
Baptist identity -- Baptist identity is both theological and historical, based on the common elements of these groups identified as Baptists.

Shared elements
With spontaneous origination, restoration shares the element that Baptists can start independently of any historical continuation or succession.
With continuation, restoration shares the element that Baptists have some sense of continuity (whether for 400 or 500 years, or 2000).
Influence of Anabaptists view shares with the Converging streams or multiple origins view the idea of more than one point of influence and origin.
As noted above, the Converging streams or multiple origins view may share some elements with succession, when continuation notes the reunion of "Baptist streams" that had flowed in different directions.

1. In Anabaptist studies, this type of origins view is often called polygenesis.

Spontaneous origination of Baptists

The three main categories listed in the Baptist origins outline below are continuation, restoration, and spontaneous origination. I want to mention the last one briefly and the move on to the two main categories and their subdivisions.

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." Nathan Finn addresses this some on his blog . 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. Someone stated it this way: "The Baptists simply appeared and started up on their own without any succession or connection..." A down-to-earth expression of this might draw from John the Baptist's words to the Jews, "God is able of these stones to raise up Baptists."

This view should not be dismissed, for there are those that hold it. But we should recognize its basic difference from the other two views. While most views and sub-theories of Baptist origins may knit together Baptist history, Baptist identity, and Baptist polity, the spontaneous origination view does not particularly address when Baptists originated, but only how. In this sense this idea seems to be a theological construct that addresses a platform of Baptist polity -- how Baptists may come into existence (or how a church may be organized), without addressing when Baptists as we know them arose historically. This view removes itself from the idea of continuity. Both the restoration view and the continuation view agree on the existence of some kind of a historical continuity of Baptists. One believes that continuity starts at a distance from the New Testament era and the other believes that it starts from the time of Christ. According to the spontaneous view of Baptist origination, it can come at any time without any reference to any preceding group. In a sense it is "ahistorical", being unconcerned with any historical development.1

Possible implications of this view
Baptist polity -- There are no antecedents of baptism, ordination or church authority needed to form a new Baptist church.
Baptist history -- Baptist history exists whenever and wherever a group of believers form a free congregation practicing believers' immersion.
Baptist identity -- Baptist identity is solely theological, independent of any historical precedent.

Shared elements
With restoration, spontaneous origination shares the element that Baptists can start independently of any historical continuation or succession.

1. By this I mean the view itself. Those individuals who hold the view may be interested in Baptist history.

Views of Baptist Origins

Outline of various views of Baptist origins, presented in a chronologically-oriented format

• Continuation
  
  
  
  1. Continuation of biblical teachings (spiritual succession)
     
  2. Succession of Baptist churches
     
     
     
     1. Church perpetuity
        
     2. Chain-link succession
        
        
        
        1. Church succession (succession of church organizations)
           
        2. Apostolic succession (succession of valid ordinations)
           
        3. Baptismal succession (succession of valid baptisms)

• Restoration
  
  
  
  1. Converging streams/multiple origins
     
  2. Influence of Anabaptists
     
  3. Outgrowth of English Separatism

• Spontaneous origination
  

Tomorrow (d.v.) we will begin to look these categories of Baptist origins.

Classifications of Baptist Historians

The following lists are compiled from various sources of historians and theologians giving what they believe are the different views of Baptist origins. I have tried to include references that are online so you can look at them.

The Baptist Heritage by H. Leon McBeth
1. The outgrowth of English Separatism
2. The influence of biblical Anabaptists
3. The continuation of biblical teachings through the ages
4. The succession of organized Baptist churches through the ages

A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail by Chris Traffanstedt
1. English Separatist movement
2. Anabaptist Influence
3. The Continuation or Successionist view

A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet (as presented by Philip Bryan)
1. The successionist theory
2. The Anabaptist spiritual kinship theory
3. The English Separatist descent theory

A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet (as presented by R. E. Pound)
1. The John the Baptist, Jordan River and Jerusalem Theory
2. The Anabaptist-Spiritual Kinship Theory of Baptist Origins
3. The English Separatist Descent Theory
4. The John H. Shakespeare Theory

[Note: Differences between Bryan & Pound on Torbet are that (1) Pound uses Torbet's original "John-Jordan-Jerusalem" terminology and Bryan takes the "successionist" term from a later revision of the book; and (2) Pound views "the Shakespeare theory" as a separate theory, while Bryan views it as a sub-theory under English Separatist descent.]

William H. Brackney in Baptist Life and Thought and The Baptists
1. Unbroken line of Baptistic churches
2. Affinities with the Continental Anabaptists
3. Arising out of English Puritans/Separatists
4. Spontaneous origination as called forth by the Holy Spirit

The Question of Baptist Origins by Nathan Finn
1. The "spontaneous origins" view
2. "Landmarkism", or Baptist succession
3. "Anabaptist kinship" view
4. "English Separatist" origins view
5. "Multiple origins" view

In addition to these, in The Southern Baptist Convention: 1845-1953, William Wright Barnes gives four variations of historical succession:
Church succession
Apostolic succession
Baptismal succession
Spiritual succession

Tomorrow I will give an outline that is an attempt to synthesize the different theories into a manageable (and hopefully helpful) format. Then we will look at some of the different views.

P.S. -- Or perhaps I won't give an outline! :-(
Does anyone know how to format an outline on Blogger?? I can't figure out how to do it.

Snowing

Wow! It's almost noon on Saturday April 7th, and it is snowing here in East Texas. We don't get much snow in the Winter, but here it is -- coming down in big ol' flakes -- on Easter weekend 2007. It's too warm to stick though, unless the temperature drops rapidly. It's 40 degrees.

The study of Baptist origins

What is the study of Baptist origins?

Simply put, to study Baptist origins is to study when Baptists as we know them had their beginning. Yet the study of Baptist origins encompasses more than just answering "Did Baptists start in Canaan land in AD 27 or England AD 1641 (or somewhere in between)?" That would be the simplistic and seemingly natural approach, but it’s just not that simple. Baptists are never that simple! If they began in AD 27, how did they get from there to here? Why were they not called Baptists back then? If they began in AD 1641, can they truly be New Testament churches? Did the truths they hold exist before that time?

The discussion of Baptist origins transforms into a discussion of its interconnected points: (1) Baptist history – not only when did it start, but how did it get from there to here, from point A to point B; (2) Baptist identity – Just what is a Baptist, anyway? (3) Baptist polity – How should we constitute a church? Who should baptize? Further, it knits itself into our ecclesiology and theology (doctrine). If New Testament churches haven’t been here since AD 27, just what did Jesus mean when He said the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and just what is the nature of the church anyway? To whom or what did He make that promise?

“Perhaps this is going to be harder than I thought. Why should I study views of Baptist origins, or Baptist origins at all for that matter?” In his novel Erewhon Revisited, Samuel Butler wrote, “It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can...” This must be where the Baptist historians come in, right? Don't like the past. Rewrite it.

No, there are good reasons to study Baptist history and origins other than finding ways to change it! We should study Baptist origins to add to our knowledge. We should study it to understand Baptists. Who are the Baptists? Why aren’t they all the same? Understanding a Baptist groups’ views of Baptist origins helps explain some of the beliefs of the group (e.g. Separatism vs. Ecumenism). Understanding their history may help explain some of the practices of the group. We should study Baptist origins to appreciate our heritage. Those who know something of the trials and hardships, triumphs and glories, faults and foibles – as well as the writings – of their ancestors are better positioned to appreciate and learn from them. We can learn from their experiences and their testimony, both positively and negatively.

What are some of the differing views of Baptist origins? There are probably about five theories, with sub-theories beneath those with varying emphases. All may be fairly represented by two broad categories – restorationist theories and continuationist theories.1 Milburn Cockrell wrote, "A person who believes that a church pops up here and there with no organic connection to any other church, and a man who believes that there has been a link-chain of churches (one church starting another church), do not believe one and the same thing." -- Observations on Church Organization

Restorationist theories hold in common that there has not been a successive groups of baptized believers from the time of the New Testament to the present. Continuationist theories hold in common that there have been successive groups of baptized believers from the New Testament times to the present.

Why are there so many different views of Baptist origins? Because we are Baptists!! And as Baptists we feel compelled to disagree, don't we?

Actually, there are probably two main reasons why we have two broad differences of opinion about Baptist origins, with competing theories and sub-theories under these. History and theology. There are different opinions and interpretations of the historical knowledge we have of the Baptists, and there are different opinions and interpretations of the theology we hold concerning the church as seen in the New Testament. And -- these two can act like magnets, at times attracting one another and at times pushing each other away. They do affect one another. Some historians seem to write with an air of having in hand a documentary of exactly how the Baptists started in the 1640’s, while others reinterpret history to fit their theological presuppositions.

"Baptists today should know about Baptist historians and their views about Baptist history and succession. This is what I call the historical consensus. A Baptist's historical theology includes the historical consensus. All students of Baptist history should realize that theology shapes the historian's views.(emphasis mine, rlv)" -- Some Critical Lectures on Baptist Succession by R. E. Pound

A third reason, from the historical standpoint, is obscurity of records. Brackney on p. 15 of Baptist Life and Thought wrote: "Since present documentation is scarce, complete validation of any of these theories must await further discoveries of primary source materials..."

I don't intend to try to solve all the problems and answer all the questions, but over the next several posts to investigate what are the main different views of Baptist origins.

1. I am indebted to Elder Mark Osgartharp, pastor of Lakeview Missionary Baptist Church in Wynne, Arkansas, for the naming of these two categories.

Whitsitt controversy

One of the controversies Shurden discusses in his book Not a Silent People is the controversy over Baptist origins, aka the Whitsitt controversy. In the 1890s, William Heth Whitsitt (1841-1911) wrote an article for the Johnson's Encyclopedia, in which he set forth the belief that the Baptists in England began to baptize by immersion in 1641 and previously had not practiced immersion. Before this he had anonymously proposed this theory in New York Independent in 1880 (or at least later claimed several of such editorials). In September 1896 he put out a book on the subject entitled A Question in Baptist History.

"During the autumn of 1877, shortly after I had been put in charge of the school of Church History at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in preparing my lectures on Baptist History, I made the discovery that, prior to the year 1641 our Baptist people in England were in the practice or sprinkling and pouring for baptism. I kept it to myself until the year 1880..."

Whitsitt's "discoveries" set off a firestorm which only subsided with his dismissal as president and church history professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. The battle against Whitsitt was led by such men as T. T. Eaton, John T. Christian, and B. H. Carroll. Later commentators would claim that these men "won the battle but lost the war", pointing out that all six of the Southern Baptist seminaries taught as church history the very point Whitsitt raised.

Did Whitsitt and his followers really win the war? The battle never came into most primitivistic Baptist groups, who had been separated from the Convention Baptists long before Whitsitt -- even before the Convention. Shortly after the Whitsitt controversy, some Landmark Baptists took their marbles and went to play elsewhere. Landmarkers evidently gradually went "underground" in the SBC, and a Baptist academia full of Whitsitt's disciples was left to teach Baptist origins as they saw it. Yet well over 100 years later it is becoming evident that common Baptists and young historians within the SBC (and elsewhere) don't believe that Whitsitt's word is the final word.

In the next several posts, we will consider what are the various theories of Baptist origins.

Baptists and controversy

In Myth: Baptists Believe in Doctrinal Uniformity, Robert N. Nash wrote, "Baptists love controversy...Sometimes we are a bit like a pair of siblings who fight each other tooth and nail until somone else comes along and joins the fray. Sometimes we forget our differences and battle the common enemy. Without an enemy, though, we are perfectly content to pound on family members." Yes, we resemble that remark! Sometimes we may think of other Baptists more like red-headed step-cousins than real family, but I think we can get the point. We do love controversy.

In 1972, Walter B. Shurden wrote a book entitled Not a Silent People: Controversies that have shaped Southern Baptists. In it he discusses various controversies that took place within the context of the Southern Baptist Convention (or if predating it nevertheless affecting it). After presenting the controversies, he concludes with "lessons from Baptist controversies." Here are 4 lessons he thinks we learn from Baptist controversies.

1. "Controversy is inevitable among Baptists." Shurden pointed out the Baptist ideas of freedom and democratic congregational government are bound to make room for controversy. Also with this freedom comes diversity, and with diversity controversy.

2. "Controversy is painful but profitable." Shurden pointed to English Baptist John Clifford belief that the evils of controversy are temporary and the benefits permanent. We learn learn from it [sometimes I wonder! :-D ]

3. "Controversy is often embodied in powerful personalities." For better or worse, we know this to be true. Many Baptist controversies are named after a central figure -- e.g. "Whitsitt controversy", "Norris controversy", "Hayden controversy" -- or at least have one or more prominent names associated with it -- e.g. Spurgeon and the "Downgrade controversy"; Graves and "Landmarkism"; Parker, Fuller, Taylor, et al. and the missions controversy.

4. "Controversy is never finally and absolutely settled among Baptists." Baptists are a priesthood of believers and congregations who head is Christ -- there is NO central authority and NO final word from such an authority.

What have you learned from a Baptist controversy?

Broadus, societies, true church

The following is an excerpt from John Albert Broadus from Hershael York's blog "Confessions of a Pastor." Jason Fowler, archivist in the library at Southern Seminary, Louisville, KY, found the following in the James Petigru Boyce collection. Read the entire e-mail at Broadus on the requirements to be a true church.

"As to my 'syllogism.' In Homiletics, under Argument, I put on the board many specimens of argument, chiefly about real and religious questions (as more intelligible and useful), such as Romanism, Pedobaptism, close communion, etc. The last 2 sessions I have added an argument for “Landmarkism,” as an example in which if the premises be granted, the conclusions must follow, and the only question is whether the premises are true. Somehow so I put it: 1. No one has the right to preach unless he is authorized by a church. 2. Pedobaptists societies are not churches. Therefore, Pedobaptist churches have not a right to preach, and we ought not to recognize them as preachers. I said that if I believed both premises, as many esteemed brethren do, I should stand up to the conclusion squarely, as they do. That some brethren deny the 2nd premises, and some deny both. That I for my part fully admit the 2nd, but do not believe the 1st. And then I both times said I introduced this matter, on which our brethren are divided in opinion, merely as an illustration of argument, and I think it a good one, and not because I wanted anyone to adopt my views."(1)

Broadus indicates that he believes Pedobaptists (infant baptizing churches) can only be considered societies and not true churches. In this point he agrees with Landmarkism, doesn't he?

(1) Letter, John A. Broadus to James P. Boyce, 15 July 1876, James Petigru Boyce Collection, Archives and Special Collections, James P. Boyce Centennial Library, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Kentucky

Unaffiliated Landmark Baptist churches survey

I completed a survey of unaffiliated Landmark Baptist churches in 2001. After weeding out duplicates and/or churches for which I discovered some denominational affiliation, my total was 1305 churches. I compiled no membership statistics for these churches, but, based on the average size of churches from known landmark Baptist statistics (ABA, BMAA, etc.) the membership of these churches should be approximately 200,000 (155 is the number I used for the average). I also identified 35 associations that hold landmark ecclesiology - 3 general associations, 1 state association, and 31 unaffiliated local associations (the 3 general and 1 state also have local associations affiliated with them). In those 35 associations I identified 3657 churches with 569,338 members. Most of those statistics were from the year 2000, but, for 8 or 10 of the local associations, the latest stats I could find were early 1990’s. If these numbers are combined with the independent churches, there are almost 5000 churches that hold Landmark ecclesiology, representing about 770,000 members. I am of the opinion that there are probably twice as many unaffiliated independent landmark Baptists as I have been able to identify.

Add to these facts, that groups of Baptists often identified as primitivistic (Central Baptists, Duck River/Kindred Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, Primitive Baptists, Regular Baptists, and United Baptists) usually hold an ecclesiology in practice like Landmarkism (they do not accept baptisms from other orders, do not use ministers from other orders, and practice closed communion, hold successionism etc.), churches in the United States holding this form of ecclesiology probably number 8000 to 10,000 with over 1,000,000 members. These primitivistic churches are not normally identified as Landmark Baptists because the term is usually limited to missionary Baptists. This also does not consider that a number of churches in the Baptist Bible Fellowship, Southwide Baptist Fellowship, World Baptist Fellowship, and even the Southern Baptist Convention would identify with this doctrine and practice. This shows that, while perhaps a small grouping compared to the total number of Baptists in the United States, Landmark-type Baptist ecclesiology does have an important place in American Baptist life.

In my attempt to make sense of the 1305 unaffiliated independent landmark Baptist churches on my list, I developed seven categories to note some of the differences between the churches - Covenant Landmark, Direct Mission, Independent Fundamental, Old Time Missionary Baptist, Sovereign Grace, Unregistered Baptists, and Unknown. These categories are somewhat arbitrary (I place the churches in the categories rather the churches placing themselves) and fluid (many of the churches could legitimately be placed in two or more categories). The decision to place a church in a category was based on what I thought seemed to be her primary emphasis that made her stand out and/or seemed to guide her in her choice of fellowship with other churches. I am listing below a link to represent these categories and the total number of churches placed in each category. Remember that each link is representative of a single church and may not represent other churches in the same category. It is possible that some of the churches in a category would fellowship with churches that I have placed in another category. Another possibility is that some churches placed in a category might not fellowship with other churches in the same category.

Covenant Landmark - 28 churches. These churches might be described as believing that only Christians in landmark Baptist churches are part of the New Covenant. They might not choose to describe themselves this way. Be sure to check out the website.
Direct Mission - 61 churches. Many of these churches have an historical connection to the gospel mission movement of missionary to China T. P. Crawford. I placed these in a separate category because I felt that their landmark principles of mission work was the chief reason they choose not to participate in associations or fellowships.
Independent Fundamental - 386 churches. These churches are very much heirs of the traits developed from the fundamentalist/modernist controversies of the early 1900’s. They are the same as others commonly thought of independent fundamental Baptists, but with a stronger local church emphasis on baptism, Lord’s supper, and pulpit affiliation, etc.
Old Time Missionary Baptist - 176 churches. These churches place a strong emphasis on a definite salvation experience, and usually have a mourner’s bench in or near the front of the church. They tend to usually not have as strong objections to associations and fellowships as some unaffiliated Baptists, and are often found closely fellowshipping with other Old Time Missionary Baptists that are in associations.
Sovereign Grace - 419 churches. These churches place a strong emphasis on the doctrines of grace, usually known as TULIP or five-point Calvinism. I think most of these churches would not fellowship with other churches that do not hold the doctrines of grace (and most Landmark churches not holding TULIP would not fellowship with them).
Unregistered Baptist - 35 churches. These churches could probably all be placed in the independent fundamentalist category. But I found a strain of Landmarkers that are asserting that churches should not incorporate or otherwise cooperate with certain requirements of the government (e.g. Indianapolis Baptist Temple). Some of these believe that the registration and cooperation with governmental tax laws, etc. causes a church to “lose its candlestick” (no longer be recognized as a true church).
Unknown - 200 churches. These are churches which I believe meet the basic requirements to be called “Landmark,” and yet I found no outstanding features (or did not have enough information) to classify them. In this group are probably some who themselves observe Landmark practices such as closed baptism, closed communion and non-pulpit affiliation, and yet do not strictly draw the line of fellowship on these issues.

These unaffiliated independent Landmark Baptist churches are scattered throughout the United States, with especially strong areas being in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Texas. The Sovereign Grace Landmarkers are very strong in Kentucky, but also surprisingly strong in states like West Virginia and Ohio. The Covenant Landmarkers have their strongest base on the west coast. They draw their lines of fellowship on the covenant issue, but not on whether a church is independent. So they are often found fellowshipping with Covenant Landmarkers in the ABA, etc. The Independent Fundamental Landmarkers have great strength in Texas, probably partly because of the influence of J. Frank Norris and Louis Entzminger. Old Time Missionary Baptists have their greatest strength in Tennessee and Kentucky, with a good showing in Missouri as well.

Ghost members

A few days back, I entitled a thread Landmarkism Under Fire, re the book by that title.

In "Appendix VI, Terms" in Landmarkism Under Fire, Elder Settlemoir mentions "ghost members":

"Ghosting members. Ghosting members is a term I have borrowed to describe a procedure by which some churches receive members who are not present, never have been present and never will be present in the assembly where they are supposed to be members. Such churches receive these members by proxy and carry these members on their roles by proxy and letter them out by proxy! The church does not even know these members nor do these members know the church! They are therefore not under the discipline of the church. These ghost members have no voice in the church. Ghosting members is usually done for the purpose of granting EMDA. The Ghost members will, at the time of constitution, be granted letters stating they are members in good standing (which is not true) and they will be lettered out to form the new church. Churches who can defend this as a scriptural procedure will have no problem baptizing a baby on the proxy faith of its god-parents!"

*No this is not an April Fools' joke!

Landmark ecclesiology

Landmarkism is a “logical system” of ecclesiology. It is a theology concerning the doctrine of the church in the same way Calvinism and Arminianism are logical systems of theology concerning salvation. I will give below what I believe to be the main points or basic substance of this ecclesiological system.

About six or seven years ago, I conducted a study to identify/count independent unaffiliated Baptist churches holding Landmark ecclesiology. To do so I had to develop criteria to identify such churches – what might be the essence of being “Landmark”. The three pillars of Landmarkism (A. C. Dayton, J. R. Graves and J. M. Pendleton) were not agreed in all points. For example, Graves held that New Testament use of the word “church/ekklesia” always meant a local congregation. Pendleton thought that in some cases it meant “the church in the aggregate.” I determined the best way to identify a “Landmarker” or church holding Landmark ecclesiology would be to identify the common characteristics of “self-identified” Landmark Baptists from their day to the present. From that I developed what I believed would be the minimum requirements (in combination) it would take to be a “Landmark Baptist church” or “Landmark Baptist”. All might not agree with my method or my conclusion, but I offer the results here for comment.

Landmarkism:

1. The church is a local autonomous body authorized by Jesus Christ to evangelize, baptise, and teach His disciples.

2. Jesus organized His church during His personal ministry, promised its continued existence, and that church (generically) still exists today.

3. Baptism is the immersion of a believer in water by the authority of a local New Testament church; believers who have been immersed by other denominations must submit to baptism by an authorized administrator.

4. The Lord’s supper is restricted to baptised believers who are walking in orderly church capacity.

This ecclesiology is most often associated with Missionary Baptists, since the name and the systemization of it were associated with Dayton, Graves, Pendleton and others in the Southern Baptist Convention in the mid-1800s. Some who hold the above ecclesiology prefer not to be called Landmarkers. Among some Missionary Baptists it has never attained common usage, though they gladly own all four points listed above. It is debatable whether it is proper to use this term in reference in to others. Nevertheless, other Baptists hold a similar ecclesiology.

Baptist history blog

I am adding a link to my side bar to the blog of Nathan A. Finn. Nathan currently teaches Baptist history and church history adjunctively at Southeastern College, in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Nathan has some very good posts on the subject of Baptist history which some of you will want to read.

Books you've read

I found the following survey on Wes Kenney's blog post "Books". Thought some of you might be interested in giving your opinions. The Bible might be your legitimate answer to a number of these. But I think the survey is really designed to get you talking about what man-written books you've read, like, dislike, etc. So try and keep that in mind as you answer.

One book that changed your life:
One book that you’ve read more than once:
One book I’d want on a desert island:
One book that made me laugh:
One book that made me cry:
One book that you wish you had written:
One book you wish had never been written:
One book that you are currently reading:
One book that you’ve been meaning to read:

Lawsuits

Praisegod Barebones (aka Bart Barber) has some good thoughts about lawsuits, in my opinion.

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? -- I Cor. 6

What do you think?

"It has been said that though God cannot alter the past, historians can..."

From Erehwon Revisted (chapter 14), by Samuel Butler (1835-1902)

Heard

Heard:* To believe in God adds nothing to His perfections; to doubt Him takes nothing away.

*I wrote this down, but now don't remember where I heard this or who said it -- probably on the radio or a taped sermon.

Prayers, plans, predestination

After quoting, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book," (Psalm 139:16) in context of something Rick Warren had written, a person posting on the Baptist Board questioned the compatability of prayer and God having a "plan" for everyone's life: "Now let's imagine that you say a prayer in this sort of universe. What difference does it make? God has his plan, and that plan is running down its track like a freight train...The idea of a 'plan' makes the idea of a 'prayer-answering relationship with God' ridiculous."

I thought Larry, a pastor in Michigan, gave a good answer: "The truth is that God has planned all the days of our lives. He declares it to be so and therefore it is. He also answers prayer. Think about it. If he has declared all the days of your life, he has therefore declared the prayers and the answers to them." [13 March 2007, the Baptist Board]

The Lord has His Way in the Whirlwind

Nahum 1:3 -- "The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet."

The Lord Has His Way In The Whirlwind
"The word of God tells us that God has His way in the whirlwind. One can only make of that that every building blown apart or submerged, every fallen tree, every ruined neighborhood and, yes, every lost life is the direct work of God Almighty.

"When will we ever quit attributing the work of our God to a ficticious Mother nature? How can we in one breath pray for God to deliver us and in the next deny that He had any part in the destruction in the first place?

"The wonder, to me, is not that God does these things, but that He hasn't been more severe in His judgments on us. These things are only a foretaste of the havoc He will wreak on this earth before the great and dreadful day of Christ's return."

-- An excerpt from an August 2005 post by Mark Osgatharp, Lakeview Missionary Baptist Church Wynne, Arkansas, which was in the context of the Hurricance Katrina that hit the Gulf Coast. It was interesting to find in the responses that many Baptists do not believe the Lord has his way in the whirlwind and in the storm...

Christ the beloved

The following is an Isaac Watts poetic rendition of Song of Solomon 5:9-16. I had not seen it before, but some of you may be familiar with it.

HYMN 75 L. M.
The description of Christ the beloved. Song of Solomon 5:9-16.

The wond'ring world inquires to know
Why I should love my Jesus so:
What are his charms," say they, "above
The objects of a mortal love?"

Yes! my Beloved, to my sight
Shows a sweet mixture, red and white:
All human beauties, all divine,
In my Beloved meet and shine.

White is his soul, from blemish free;
Red with the blood he shed for me;
The fairest of ten thousand fairs;
A sun amongst ten thousand stars.

His head the finest gold excels;
There wisdom in perfection dwells,
And glory like a crown adorns
Those temples once beset with thorns.

Compassions in his heart are found,
Hard by the signals of his wound:
His sacred side no more shall bear
The cruel scourge, the piercing spear.

His hands are fairer to behold
Than diamonds set in rings of gold;
Those heav'nly hands, that on the tree
Were nailed, and torn, and bled for me!

Though once he bowed his feeble knees,
Loaded with sins and agonies,
Now on the throne of his command
His legs like marble pillars stand.

His eyes are majesty and love,
The eagle tempered with the dove;
No more shall trickling sorrows roll
Through those dear windows of his soul.

His mouth, that poured out long complaints,
Now smiles and cheers his fainting saints
His countenance more graceful is
Than Lebanon with all its trees.

All over glorious is my Lord
Must be beloved, and yet adored;
His worth if all the nations knew,
Sure the whole earth would love him too.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748) - Hymns and Spiritual Songs, 1707.

Foreknowledge not just information

“When the Bible speaks of God’s foreknowledge, it is never speaking of God’s gathering information about events over which He had no control. God is not passive, but active, in foreknowledge. ‘Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain’ (Acts 2:23). God did not just gather information ahead of time that Jesus would be crucified at the hands of wicked men. He determined it by His foreknowledge according to His own counsel. It did not just happen to turn out that way, and He had advance information about it. It turned out that way because He had before determined it should.” – Conrad Murrell, in Salvation...When?, page 27

Socrates got it right

Socrates, who died around 399 BC, was a Greek philosopher and not a Christian. But he certainly got it right when he said: "Could I climb to the highest place in Athens, I would lift my voice and proclaim, 'Fellow citizens, why do you turn and scrape every stone to gather wealth, and take so little care of your children to whom one day you must relinquish it all?'" -- Socrates, about 420 B.C., according to Plato.

Another "lesson from history" may be found at the link.

DST - reprise

"An Act to preserve daylight and provide standard time for the United States" was enacted on March 19, 1918.


Anyone know the source/author of this below?

Not at the River Jordan
But in the flowing stream,
Stood John the Baptist dipping
When he baptized Him.
John was a Baptist preacher,
When he baptized the Lamb;
Then Jesus was a Baptist,
And thus the Baptists came.

Hope by Mike McInnnis

Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil. -- Hebrews 6:19

The scripture uses several adjectives to describe the hope which the LORD gives:

One hope. “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph 4:4-5) This describes the very basis upon which the HOPE of the LORD’s children is based. There is only one sure ground upon which true hope can rest, HIS name is the LORD JESUS CHRIST.

A good hope. “Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace, Comfort your hearts, and establish you in every good word and work.” (2 Thess 2:16- 17) That hope which HE gives is like a breath of fresh air or a cool drink from a deep well which springs up into everlasting life, filling the soul with gladness and peace.

A blessed hope. “Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” (Titus 2:13) The anticipation of our LORD’s return is indeed a blessed hope for those who love HIS appearing. There are some who have erred from the faith saying that the resurrection is past and that CHRIST has already come. (see 2 Tim.2:18)

A better hope. “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” (Heb 7:19) The ground and basis of our hope is not built on anything which must be accomplished by sinful men. JESUS CHRIST has fulfilled the law in its jot and tittle and has offered one sacrifice for sins forever. HE is now seated at the right hand of the FATHER making intercession for HIS own. The law could never make us righteous nor can it now bring us into condemnation. “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.” (Rom 8:2)

A lively hope. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (1 Pet 1:3) Our hope is “lively” (i.e.; living) because HE is alive and has placed within us, the hope that we too shall be raised from the sleep of death and shall put on immortality in an incorruptible body like unto HIS. This hope is at the very heart of our desire. “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.” (1 Cor 15:19- 20)

-- Excerpt from the Grace Gazette Vol. V, Issue 10

Systematized theology

"Jesus, as has been intimated, did not teach a Dogmatic Theology; but only imparted, in a fragmentary form, the eternal truths of the religion of Heaven. The Apostles, particularly Paul and John, formed indeed a system of doctrines; but not a sharply-defined and logical system like that of the Schoolmen of the middle ages, and those Schools of Theology of our day. It was long, however, before believers at large began to build up the doctrines of Christianity in a connected and systematic manner. At first they were satisfied with the simple confession that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that he is the Messiah promised by the prophets, and that he is the Son of God and the Saviour of the world." -- History of the Early Baptists: from the 'Beginning of the Gospel' to the rise of affusion as baptism, and of infant baptism 28 A.D.--250 A.D., William Cecil Duncan, New Orleans, LA: Alex Duncan & Co., 1857pp. 162, 163

How do teachers make their students feel?

Seen posted in a school: In years to come, your students may forget what you taught them. But they will always remember how you made them feel.

What does this mean? Is it correct? If so, what does it suggest to teachers?

Landmarkism under Fire

I just ran across this book online -- Landmarkism Under Fire: a Study of Landmark Baptist Polity on Church Constitution by J. C. Settlemoir.

The book deals with what is termed (at least in this book) "Essential Mother-Daughter Authority" for the purpose of constituting a church. According to Settlemoir, "EMDA is a doctrine concerning church constitution" that "maintains authority must be given by a mother church in order to constitute a group into a new church. It teaches the authority of Christ was transferred to the church and consequently only a church can pass this authority on to another group." Or, as stated by a proponent of the idea, "Therefore I believe that all true churches were founded or established on the consent of a mother church." [7 Questions and Answers as to Church Authority, by Robert Ashcraft]

I believe this will prove fascinating reading to those interested in the polity of church constitution, whether or not one is a "Landmarker".

March 14th in History

March 14, 1794: The cotton gin was patented by Eli Whitney.
March 14, 1804: Johann Strauss, Austrian composer, was born.
March 14, 1879: Albert Einstein, Austrian scientist, was born.
March 14, 1883: Karl Marx, German philosopher and communist revolutionary, dies.
March 14, 1961: Revised version of the New Testament published.
March 14, 1964: Jack Ruby found guilty of killing Lee Harvey Oswald, and sentenced to death.
March 14, 1980: Members of the US Olympic boxing team are among the 87 killed in a plane crash in Warsaw.

Daylight saving time

Who decided we need more Daylight saving time?

According to Wikipedia, the idea of Daylight saving time began in 1905 with Englishman William Willett, and he published a proposal for it in 1907 (evidently Benjamin Franklin raised the idea as early as 1784).

"Everyone appreciates the long, light evenings. Everyone laments their shortage as Autumn approaches; and everyone has given utterance to regret that the clear, bright light of an early morning during Spring and Summer months is so seldom seen or used." -- William Willett "The Waste of Daylight" 1907

"DST was first enacted by a national government by Germany during World War I...On March 19, 1918, the U.S. Congress established DST from the last Sunday in March to the last Sunday in October." This was unpopular and was repealed in 1919. (Wikipedia)

Of course, we all understand (don't we?) that no daylight is actually saved, the amount of daylight being governed by the God-created sun rather than our watches. So the running back & forth of clocks and watches doesn't really save "daylight". Does it actually save energy? I don't know. I am simple enough to know that the "time change" associated with DST will increase the use of electricity in the morning and reduce its use in the evening. If the reduction of energy use in the evening reduction in greater than the increase of energy use in the morning, then a savings could occur. According to United States DOT, such a savings does occur -- about 1% each day.

"I don't really care how time is reckoned so long as there is some agreement about it, but I object to being told that I am saving daylight when my reason tells me that I am doing nothing of the kind. I even object to the implication that I am wasting something valuable if I stay in bed after the sun has risen. As an admirer of moonlight I resent the bossy insistence of those who want to reduce my time for enjoying it. At the back of the Daylight Saving scheme I detect the bony, blue-fingered hand of Puritanism, eager to push people into bed earlier, and get them up earlier, to make them healthy, wealthy and wise in spite of themselves." -- Robertson Davies, "The Diary of Samuel Marchbanks" 1947

To me, Daylight saving time seems to be a government-imposed lifestyle change for all its citizens.

Salvation.....When?

Have any of you read Salvation.....When? by Conrad Murrell [G.A.T.E. Publications, Bentley, LA, 1993] Murrell is a preacher, writer, and conference speaker. He pastors Grace Church of Bentley, is about 77 years old, and has been preaching for over 50 years.

According to Grace and Truth Enterpises, Salvation....When is a "mind-jarring, searching recovery of the biblical doctrine of Salvation" that " Shockingly reveals the problems spawned by defining and limiting salvation in an experience."

He has a Calvinistic belief system. Just wondering what you all think, if you've read Murrell? Here's a few quotes:

"The basic error is in viewing salvation as an experience - that is, an in-time experience to which past, future, and eternity are all subjective...Soon, one who had been delighted in his experience is convinced he was deceived and needs another experience...Salvation includes the complete deliverance of the saint...There would be no difference of brethren over the doctrine of eternal security if Bible salvation were understood. The division exists solely because of the idea of salvation being in an experience...Salvation is not an experience: it is an act of God that has its origin and consummation in eternity, and includes all the experience in grace of the object of salvation in his entire lifetime." - from pages 17-22

I found his explanation of the harmonization of certain verses on perseverance and some that seem to teach apostasy unique and interesting.

The Tailor-King

In my post on The argument of theological differences, I mentioned that was reading The Tailor-King by Anthony Arthur. I finished it last night.

Arthur's book is a "popular" telling of the Münster Rebellion in Germany. It is well written and seems to keep to historical accuracy. It is not written with the "serious" historian in mind, and would be a good introduction to the story for those not familiar with it. Some Anabaptists set up a kingdom in Münster in the 1530s, and were beseiged and eventually overthrown by Franz von Waldeck, the "prince-bishop" of the area.

Arthur is not particularly sympathetic to the Münster Anabaptists, but also does not find evil in everything they did (as was the standard line for many years). In his last chapter he makes some comparison to recent "millennial movements", such as that of David Koresh and the Branch Davidians, Jim Jones & Jonestown, etc..

Overall, I would recommend it.

Ponder anew what the Almighty can do

Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
O my soul, praise Him, for He is thy health and salvation!
All ye who hear, now to His temple draw near;
Praise Him in glad adoration.

Praise to the Lord, Who doth prosper thy work and defend thee;
Surely His goodness and mercy here daily attend thee.
Ponder anew what the Almighty can do,
If with His love He befriend thee.

Praise to the Lord, O let all that is in me adore Him!
All that hath life and breath, come now with praises before Him.
Let the Amen sound from His people again,
Gladly for aye we adore Him.

Hymn written by Joachim Neander in 1680 (translated by Catherine Winkworth).
See Praise to the Lord, the Almighty in the Cyber Hymnal for all the verses. Thanks to Julian Smithe for sending this via e-mail.

Today in 1836

Early in the morning of March 6, 1836, Santa Anna ordered his troops to storm Misión San Antonio de Valero, the Alamo.

Smith Memorial Singing

Saturday (only) before Second Sunday — March 10, 2007 (d.v.)

28th Annual Smith Memorial Sacred Harp Singing

New Harmony Community Center, on FM 724 in the NewHarmony Community, between State Hwys 64 & 110,northwest of Tyler, Texas.

More info: Myrl Jones, (903) 593-0955.
Books: 1991 Revision/Cooper Revision

For map, follow this link:Smith Memorial Singing

The argument of theological differences

Something I'm reading and something I re-read this week intersected in a way to cause me to write down these thoughts. I'm reading The Tailor-King, which is a re-telling of "the rise and fall of the Anabaptist kingdom of Munster" by Anthony Arthur. The Anabaptist kingdom of Munster is a story of radical Anabaptists run amuck, but Anabaptists nonetheless. This unfortunate series of events was used for centuries to "tar and feather" all Anabaptists. I have no intention of doing so. But to deny any connection between the peace-loving non-resistant Anabaptists and the radicals at Munster who defied a feudal war-lord (aka Bishop von Waldeck) and proposed to violently set up the Kingdom of God on earth is an historical mistake. In fact, a disciple of Jan Matthias (the instigator of Munster) baptized Obbe Philips, who ordained and probably baptized Menno Simons.

A popular trend in Baptist studies is what might be called the "argument of theological (or doctrinal) differences." This "argument of theological differences" is used to support the idea that there was no connection between the early English Baptists and the Continental Anabaptists -- their doctrines are different, therefore there is no connection. Winthrop Hudson provides a good example of this line of thinking. Hudson stresses the Baptists' rejection of certain features of Anabaptist life and thought -- opposition to civil magistracy, the holding of public office, military service, oaths, and going to court -- as evidence that "Baptists Were Not Anabaptists" (The Chronicle, Vol. XVI, No. 4, Oct. 1953, p. 172.).

Mark Osgatharp puts this in perspective in "Twisted Historical Logic" (Baptist Board, 3 Aug 2003): By applying the modernist revisionist historical "logic" to more modern circumstances, we can see just how absurd their conclusions are.

1. Campbellites and Baptists are at theological odds - therefore Campbellites didn't originate among the Baptists. But Campbellites did originate among the Baptists. There are many Campbellite churches existing today which were originally Baptist churches.

2. Charismatics and Baptists are at doctrinal odds - therefore Charismatics didn't originate among the Baptists. But the reality is that there are many charismatic churches that were at one time Baptist churches. As a matter of fact, when the Assemblies of God denomination was first organized there was a whole local association of Missionary Baptist churches in north Arkansas that went over in mass into it's organization.

3. The "General Baptist" denomination in America is an Arminian body - therefore they did not originate among the Calvinistic Baptists. But they did originate among the Calvinistic Baptists. The founder of this group [Benoni Stinson] was sent as a missionary out of a Calvinist Baptist church in Indiana. After establishing a new church he openly declared his opposition to Calvinism. Later, the churches that grew out of this movement abandoned the doctrine of eternal security as their founder had abandoned Calvinism.

4. Modernist Baptists and Bible Believing Baptists are at diametrical odds, therefore they have no historical kinship. But, as we all know, they do have historical kinship. Baptist churches that were once doctrinally sound are now theologically bankrupt. There are even churches where the membership is split between Christians and modernists.Ironically, the Baptists who are the most theologically destitute are the very ones who would disown some group in the past because they don't pass Baptist doctrinal muster! -- [Excerpt from the thread "Twisted Historical Logic", Mark Osgatharp, on www.baptistboard.com]

I find it amusing that often the most narrow Baptists in faith and practice -- who will not fellowship those who do not dot their "i's" and cross their "t's" in the same manner -- are often the quickest to embrace any old heretical group as an ancestor if they practiced adult immersion; while, on the other hand, the most theologically diverse and ecumenical Baptists reject some quite similar ancient baptistic folks as not meeting their criteria to be "real" Baptists.

Hudson's "argument of theological differences" may rest partially in a bias and certainly fails to entertain the complexity of the Anabaptist movement on the European continent. Bro. Osgatharp illustrates the failure of this argument to the meet the muster. It is a prop that needs to be pulled out of the English Separatist descent theory. If one cannot prove a tie between the English Baptists and Continental Anabaptists -- or can prove there is not one -- then discuss the historical evidence. But the historically untested use of the "argument of theological differences" might just as well prove that some Baptist church of the same name in the same place is not the one that was begun there 200 years before.

Pejorative terms

"It would seem more appropriate in academic debate, and indeed a simple matter of common courtesy, to refer to positions by the terms that the representatives of those positions choose for themselves rather than by pejorative terms that they reject." -- from Should We Move Beyond the New Testament to a Better Ethic? by Wayne Grudem