How Baptist Successionism undermines what it means to be a Baptist

[FSSL]

A faith that cannot handle honest questioning is a very weak faith IMHO.

Yep... What kind of Baptist is afraid to even identify what kind of Baptist or theory of history he subscribes?

 

[FSSL]

Getting back on track for anyone else who is interested in discussing the following premises.

• Baptists have always been Protestants.
• John Smyth, like the rest of the first generation of Baptists, did not immerse. Nor did they rebaptize each other when they changed their mode from pouring to immersion.
  
• At the beginning, Baptists were either General (Arminian) or Particular (Calvinist) Baptists. There is no documentation of another kind of Baptist.
  
• Baptists rejected any identification with the Anabaptists. When John Smyth tried to defect to the Anabaptists, his own Baptist church (Helwys) rejected him.
  
• None of the founding Baptists held to successionism. It found popularity in 1931 and now it is very difficult to find any new successionist writings.

 

[PappaBear]

Dear Pappabear,

This sure is a convoluted mixed up bunch of clap trap muddy unclear obfuscation tap dancing parsing conflating and spinning over reaching  illogical mush.

After reading what you said I can't figure out what you believe or if you believe.

By the way have you given some time to study Translators to the Reader?

I am simply a Christian.

B.G., you are dishonest, my man.  If it was so convoluted, how did you understand it enough to copy it for your last line?

As for the translators to the reader, your attempt at distracting from this thread, the ball is in your court.

Mr. K presents his opinion.

I can not comprehend how you would agree unless you already believed the KJVO dogma.

Try reading real history.

Start with Translators to the Reader in an unmutilated KJV Bible

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

No, Bro. Will presents much, much more than mere opinion.  He gives verifiable information where you find actual references to Acts 8:37 predating your oldest Greek manuscripts.

What do you give for me to read as "real history"?  Only the "Translator to the Reader" and they have nothing to say at all about Acts 8:37.  However, they do come very close under "The Praise of the Holy Scriptures" section when they reference the Ethiopian Eunuch's reading of Isaiah in Acts 8:28, 29. 

Maybe you would like to try again? Do you deny that the Patristics quoted or referenced Acts 8:37?  If so, on what basis?  That is, assuming you have a basis other than "because it was Will K. that said they did and I hate his guts."

 

[PappaBear]

PappaBear... I am simply done with you on this topic. You are not unequivocal about your own beliefs. You are not honest about mine (while you are shocked at the openness of mine). I am not afraid to identify as a Particular Baptist with 2 stated confessions of faith.

How can we trust you to be honest about the beliefs of someone 400+ years ago?

I will gladly take this discussion up with someone else. You are incapable (for whatever strange reason) to openly and honestly discuss what kind of Baptist you are among Baptists! I tire of your peurile protests about me not figuring you out what you believe. What an absolute waste of time.

As expected.  You want to box people in, but cannot answer direct questions or applications, nor supply documentation yourself.  I well understand why you wish to avoid supplying the documentation or answering any of the pertinent questions from my last post.

Simply, Baptists refuse throughout their very long history to be isolated into your Calvy boxes.  As the many links and references I have supplied shows, Baptists have long believed in Conscience, and have identified with their brethren in history since New Testament times, even though they were called by names other than "Baptist" by their enemies.  I have repeatedly answered your specific questions, but have denied your attempts at speaking for me.  My protests have never been about you figuring what I believe.  Your posts and convolutions show that you very well understand what I believe and it is in opposition to your ex-cathedra claims with little documentation or support.  That I dispute your OP throughout this thread and supply many links explaining what I believe and supporting it demonstrates that.  My objection has always been, and will continue to be, your attempts to speak for me or explain my position from your little boxes. 

 

[FSSL]

As expected.  You want to box people in, but cannot answer direct questions or applications, nor supply documentation yourself.

So... asking you whether you hold to a genetic or spiritual succession is somehow an unfair boxing in? I have never met a Baptist that was afraid to say what variety of Baptist he is. It is not like I am asking you a risky or controversial question. I would like to know your perspective.

As we have seen, you certainly have no problems assuming what boxes we all belong in! How does this work? You ask me targeted questions to figure out what kind of Baptist I am and you get in a quandry when I ask you.

How can we trust someone to opine what a dead Baptist believed 400+ years ago if you are not willing to give us clarity about yourself? What is there to hide? Does your variety of Baptist spook you?!

What a puerile game!

I have the "goods" and can give wide support and defend any of the above premises three posts above.

 

[PappaBear]

• Baptists have always been Protestants.

Denied.  Baptists have always been separatists, Reformers have always protested.

• John Smyth, like the rest of the first generation of Baptists, did not immerse. Nor did they rebaptize each other when they changed their mode from pouring to immersion.

Denied.  As repeatedly shown, John Smyth was heavily influenced by the Swiss Anabaptists and later identified with their succession, requesting rebaptism and membership.  He unfortunately passed before they accepted, but not before Smyth wrote his 20 point and 100 point confessions.  Not all Anabaptists used immersion, but neither did all Anabaptists use other modes.  You have failed to supply ANY documentation supporting that the Waterlanders did not immerse.  Immersion is not the topic, but it is understood that those who subscribe to the recent history revision of the English Separatist Theory of Baptist Church origins will also claim that immersion was "rediscovered" in 1641 as per Whitsitt, contrary to very widely accepted Baptist histories showing many different immersionists, including Anabaptists, throughout history.

• At the beginning, Baptists were either General (Arminian) or Particular (Calvinist) Baptists. There is no documentation of another kind of Baptist.

You have yet to establish your claim of Baptist beginnings with any authority.  According to William Kiffin, Daniel King, Henry D'Anvers, Thomas Grantham, Joseph Hooke,  Samuel Stennett, G.H. Orchard, Jospeh Ivimey, B. Evans, J. Davis,  J. M. Cramp, J. H. Shackleford, D. B. Ray, Edward T. Hiscox, W. A. Jarrell, Cushing B. Hassell, William Cathcart, S. H. Ford, J. B. Moody, John T. Christian,  J. M. Carroll, W. R. Rothwell,  J. W. Porter, W. P. Harvey, P. E. Burroughs, W. M. Nevins, Thomas Crosby, Robert G. Torbet, David Benedict, Richard B. Cook, Thomas Armitage, James Beller, Leonard Verduin, William R. Estep, David L. Cummins, James H. Sightler, Paige Patterson and Albert Henry Newman you are wrong.  Sorry, but I will take their research over your Calvy verdict or Whitsitt's recent revision of history.

• Baptists rejected any identification with the Anabaptists. When John Smyth tried to defect to the Anabaptists, his own Baptist church (Helwys) rejected him.

Denied.  There is plenty of documentation, even on such light places as Wikipedia, that the Anabaptists have influenced the early English Baptists.  Helwys did come out on the low end of a church split with Smyth and went to England with only 10 followers, but Smyth continued with about 36 from the church which eventually joined the Waterlanders as a church with historical authority to baptize.  Their split was over age-old Baptist principles which you and your reformed brethren who are more appropriately English Separatists will continue to diminish, namely the authority to baptize, succession, and immersion.  William R. Estep will especially show the continued influence of John Smyth and the Anabaptists upon modern Baptist Churches.

• None of the founding Baptists held to successionism. It found popularity in 1931 and now it is very difficult to find any new successionist writings.

Again, you have not yet established or supported your revisionist history of Baptist founders.  The histories of many of those listed above long pre-date your 1931 date.  Anyone who wants to casually research online the Whitsitt Controversy in the 1890's will find PLENTY of documentation showing that Landmarker and Spiritual Kinship were the commonly taught and embraced views of Baptists prior to that time, accounting for Mr. Whitsitt's resignation in 1899 as president of SBTS.  To continually restate your positions in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary demonstrates your inability to make a credible or believable argument.

 

[PappaBear]

I have the "goods" and can give wide support and defend any of the above premises three posts above.

No, you cannot.  You are done with this, remember?  So I can continue posting demonstrable information that contradicts your ex-cathedra statements from a non-baptist enemy of King James Principled Baptists without concern of you responding to my statements.  And it will be no worry for you, because all can see how little I know and how puerile my answers are.  Why should you be concerned?  I'm just a little Baptist guy out here on the lunatic fringe, grinning like a maniac at your contortions of our history and vain attempts at setting up false arguments.

 

[FSSL]

I made a mistake. Here is what the forum rules say: "We make the commitment to never introduce ads, restrict ideals, or purposely target anyone for any belief they may affirm."

I was out of bounds and am sorry.

I will just let you continue on...

 

[FSSL]

I also made a second mistake by saying "I am done." I will continue to debate this topic.

 

[bgwilkinson]

PappaBear take your meds.

Nothing but whining and moaning and ad hominem. It's what all KJVOs resort to when their arguments do not succeed and fall flat. Like a preacher when he knows the people don't follow, just scream a little louder.

That does not work here, we are wise to the KVO methods. They are doubly denied.

No primary sources just cut and paste from biased KJVO web sites.

Do some research and cit primary sources that we can look up and verify.

No endless lists of names without page numbers, publication dates, etc.

No KJVO web sites. They are denied.

Here try this. Here is an unimpeachable primary source that I would not dispute.
Unlike Mr. K. He is denied same with BB.

The authentic unmutilated first edition KJV1611 printed by Robert Barker.
This one is pure and not hacked to pieces like modern KJVs.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

This is not from a KJVO or anti KJVO site. It's from a major university with no dog in the fight.

We can work from this copy of the Bible. I will accept it. Will you? I doubt it. It is a KJVO destroyer.

PappaBear the truth could set you free from the KJVO dogma and the strong delusion that accompanies your posts.

Please show a little Christian love and the fruit of the Spirit. Be less surly and vindictive.

Your statements are filled with calumniation and venom towards those of us that don't agree with you.

Oh take your meds, I take mine.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Baptist Distinctives, could also be called The distictives of the Christian.

 

[rsc2a]

The distinguishing principles of the people first called "Christians" and now called "Baptists" are:

1. The Scriptures, the only authoritative guide-book for our religious life. There may be no appeal from, or addition to, their precepts and principles.

2. The individual and direct access of every soul to God; none between man and God, save only the God-man.

3. The complete separation of Church and State in their respective fields; the Church dealing with religious, and the State with civil affairs.

4. The simple polity of the church's government; each church autonomous and a democracy in itself.

5. The baptism of believers only, or a regenerate church membership. Incidentally, they believe in baptism by immersion only, according to the Scriptures, as symbolizing the death, burial and resurrection of Christ; and that the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance.

- George White McDaniel - Baptists-History - 1919

Points #1, 3, & 4 are completely wrong, having absolutely no basis at all in history and/or Scripture. In fact, both would plainly show these to be wrong.

Point #5 is debatable with Scriptural support for either argument based on eisegesis to make its case. Early writings are, likewise, mixed with a clear (although not necessarily correct) teaching of infant baptism becoming normative within a few centuries. There are also Christian groups that baptize infants who do so by immersion. Additionally, baptism is spoken of as symbolizing the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus which immersion would clearly show, but it is also stated to refer to several other things which other modes may more clearly show. (FTR: the earliest records here seem to indicate that immersion was normative while other modes were permissible in certain cases.)

 

[FSSL]

FSSL: Baptists have always been Protestants.

PB: Denied.  Baptists have always been separatists, Reformers have always protested.

FSSL: Let's assume for argument's sake that Baptists had a succession. You have a big problem:
1) You tell us that Baptists came from the Anabaptists. They are protestants.
2) You tell us that Baptists came from Waldensians. They are protestants and Calvinists, to boot!

What is so bad about calling Baptists "Protestants?" They protested against Catholicism by adopting doctrines like "justification by faith" and the top Baptist Distinctive being, that the Bible is the sole rule for faith and practice. Those are CERTAINLY aimed at Catholicism.

John Smyth in the Character of the Beast, 1609 wrote:

Loe: we protest against thē, to be a false Chu. falsely constituted in the bap. of infants, & their owne vnbaptized estate: we protest against them to have a false wors. of reading books: we protest against them to have a false govern, of a triformed Presbytery: we protest against them to have a false Minist. of Doct. or Teachers: Finally, wee protest against them that seing their constitution is false, therfor ther is no one ordinance of the L. true among them: These things wee have published, & of these things we require answer. For we proclaime against them as they proclaime against their owne mother England: That the Seperation the yongest & the fayrest daughter of Rome, is an harlot: For as is the mother so is the daughter.…

Looks to me that John Smyth PROTESTED!



FSSL: John Smyth, like the rest of the first generation of Baptists, did not immerse. Nor did they rebaptize each other when they changed their mode from pouring to immersion.

PB: Denied.  As repeatedly shown, John Smyth was heavily influenced by the Swiss Anabaptists and later identified with their succession, requesting rebaptism and membership.

FSSL: Smyth died in 1612. The Waterlanders adopted immersion SEVEN YEARS LATER in 1619. A Mennonite contemporary of Smyth (Lubbert Gerrits) said that Smyth's baptism matched theirs according to "foundation and form." They poured.



FSSL: At the beginning, Baptists were either General (Arminian) or Particular (Calvinist) Baptists. There is no documentation of another kind of Baptist.

PB: You have yet to establish your claim of Baptist beginnings...

FSSL: You throw alot of names out there... for what effect?

What you do not mention is that this is a mixed list of genetic (landmarker) and spiritual kinship theorists. These people do not even agree!

You even include Kiffin who was neither. Kiffin just noted that Baptists get their authority from the New Testament, not a date. Do you have evidence that Kiffin believed they came from Anabaptists?

An argument is not made by the number of names a person can generate. An argument is only made by historical documentation.



FSSL: Baptists rejected any identification with the Anabaptists. When John Smyth tried to defect to the Anabaptists, his own Baptist church (Helwys) rejected him.

PB: Denied.  There is plenty of documentation, even on such light places as Wikipedia, that the Anabaptists have influenced the early English Baptists. 

FSSL: I never denied INFLUENCE. I deny IDENTIFICATION. The Baptists ALWAYS rejected the name Anabaptists. See the Confessions of Faith I posted above.



FSSL: None of the founding Baptists held to successionism. It found popularity in 1931 and now it is very difficult to find any new successionist writings.

PB: Again, you have not yet established or supported your revisionist history of Baptist founders.

FSSL: The people above were not founders. Kiffin was about as close to a founder as you have, but he did not have a genetic or spiritual kinship scheme to Anabaptists, Donatists and the gnostic Paulicians.



PB: To continually restate your positions in the face of such overwhelming evidence to the contrary demonstrates your inability to make a credible or believable argument.

FSSL: A far as credibility is concerned... I am hardly facing a challenge.

• I am not the one linking to websites that don't even know how to spell Arminian correctly. You quote people and the quotes defeat your own points.
  
• I am not the one hiding my belief system.
  
• I am not the one using adhominem and calling people dishonest.
  
• I am not the one calling myself a lunatic or maniac.
  

History is ALWAYS based on documentation, not what this or that historian claimed.

 

[christundivided]

To be well born is to enter life with advantage. Baptists are justly proud of their parentage -- the New Testament. They have an ancient and scriptural origin.

Certain characters in history are named as founders of various denominations: The Disciples began with Alexander Campbell, the Methodists with John Wesley, the Presbyterians with John Calvin, the Lutherans with Martin Luther, and the Church of England with Henry VIII and Crammer's Book of Common Prayer in the reign of Edward VI.

Not so with the Baptists. There is no personality this side of Jesus Christ who is a satisfactory explanation of their origin. The New Testament churches were independent, self-governing, democratic bodies like the Baptist churches of to-day.

We originated, not at the Reformation, nor in the Dark Ages, nor in any century after the Apostles, but our marching orders are the Commission, and the first Baptist church was the church at Jerusalem.

Our principles are as old as Christianity, and we acknowledge no founder but Christ.

- George White McDaniel - Baptists-History - 1919

Total and utter nonsense. Modern Baptist can be traced back to John Smyth and was product of separation from the church of England.

 

[FSSL]

Our principles are as old as Christianity, and we acknowledge no founder but Christ. - George White McDaniel - Baptists-History - 1919

Except that many say John the Baptist was the founder of the Baptists.

 

[FSSL]

There is just so much written by successionists that is demonstrably untrue. Just go back to the original sources and you can see for yourself.

If you think MY reaction against "Baptists coming from Anabaptists" is strong... you ought to see what ANABAPTISTS have to say about it!!

Anabaptists Worldwide: "The Mennonites and Baptists insist upon tracing their heritage back to the Anabaptists, without ever explaining why they do not hold to that name, while fraudulently claiming their historic confessions make them the heir to the line without the name or the life of an Anabaptist! Mennonite and Baptists historians are chief priests and scribes in the Apostate Liars Union of religious historians that think nothing about changing factual history into denominational fiction..."

... and the website continues with some scathing remarks against Richard Weeks (my former prof) and Thomas Armitage. I believe they are dead on!

If Baptists are Anabaptists... then praytell... why not just call ourselves Anabaptists, believe and dress like them?! Okay... some IFBXrs have the Anabaptist dress styles down for their women. Men, change those britches and get yourself a straw hat!

 

[bgwilkinson]

There is just so much written by successionists that is demonstrably untrue. Just go back to the original sources and you can see for yourself.

If you think MY reaction against "Baptists coming from Anabaptists" is strong... you ought to see what ANABAPTISTS have to say about it!!

Anabaptists Worldwide: "The Mennonites and Baptists insist upon tracing their heritage back to the Anabaptists, without ever explaining why they do not hold to that name, while fraudulently claiming their historic confessions make them the heir to the line without the name or the life of an Anabaptist! Mennonite and Baptists historians are chief priests and scribes in the Apostate Liars Union of religious historians that think nothing about changing factual history into denominational fiction..."

... and the website continues with some scathing remarks against Richard Weeks (my former prof) and Thomas Armitage. I believe they are dead on!

If Baptists are Anabaptists... then praytell... why not just call ourselves Anabaptists, believe and dress like them?! Okay... some IFBXrs have the Anabaptist dress styles down for their women. Men, change those britches and get yourself a straw hat!

Would that all posters would use original sources instead of bias KJVO talking points that haven't been improved upon since the 70s.

There never has been a time in history when so much of the Bible and Bible history is so easily obtained by unlearned people.

 

[FSSL]

Would that all posters would use original sources instead of bias...

There is nothing like well-placed original and primary sources to make a solid, undefeatable case.

Hear the silence?!

 

[FSSL]

An Honorable History - Character is determined by ideals and achievements. If we would know the place of Baptists, we must consider their historic greatness, their heroic fidelity to human liberty and their part in the life of the world. Our principles develop a type of character and life which tends to make men potent factors in achievements worth while.

Baptists have been pioneers in so many fields that to enumerate these might seem to assume a braggart spirit. But a statement of irrefutable facts must be taken as dispassionate and impartial. Baptists have always been champions of civil and religious liberty.

- George White McDaniel - Baptists-History - 1919

Absolutely, this is a good quote. If it were not for Baptists like John Leland, we would not have the religious freedom we enjoy today in America.

This is one reason, among many, why we should never identify Baptists with groups like the Paulicians.