How Baptist Successionism undermines what it means to be a Baptist

[FSSL]

And good luck identifying yourself with Baptist murdering arrogant papists like the frozen chosen.

Frozen or not... I am humbled to be chosen before the foundations of the world!

BTW: Calvin did not murder a Baptist. And Baptists do not come from Calvin. But I digress...

 

[PappaBear]

btw ... Calvin murdered multiple baptists, he could not stop at just one.  You are right, Baptists do not come from Calvin; however, their graves do.

And you can only really find out if you are chosen if you persevere.  Good luck with that.

 

[FSSL]

And you can only really find out if you are chosen if you persevere.  Good luck with that.

With every post, you show you do not know what Calvinism is...
With every post, you show that you don't even know what Baptists really are... Hint: Baptists (even small case baptists) were not around when John Calvin was. He died 6 years before John Smyth was even born!

 

[PappaBear]

Hint:  Baptists predate Smyth, even by his own recognition. 

And the force of others who have stated this (such as Spurgeon) and you have willfully ignored puts me in good company.

 

[FSSL]

Hint:  Baptists predate Smyth, even by his own recognition.

Primary source, please.

 

[PappaBear]

Hint:  Baptists predate Smyth, even by his own recognition.

Primary source, please.

What is that you and Ransom say frequently?  "Do your own work"

Man, that Traditional Southern Baptists' Statement did a number on you guys, didn't it?  Wonderful!  Wonderful!

 

[christundivided]

BTW: Calvin did not murder a Baptist. And Baptists do not come from Calvin. But I digress...

Except for the Reformed Baptist. Which..... pretty much covers a vast majority today. Its rather silly to think that Baptist have no roots in Reformation.

 

[Ransom]

What is that you and Ransom say frequently?  "Do your own work"

Right.

Whoever said "Hint:  Baptists predate Smyth, even by his own recognition," please provide a primary source in which Smyth recognizes that Baptists predate himself.

Thank you.

 

[FSSL]

Except for the Reformed Baptist. Which..... pretty much covers a vast majority today. Its rather silly to think that Baptist have no roots in Reformation.

Ideaological roots... but this Baptist Successionist theory is entirely different.
It says that Baptists have direct genealogical roots to some of the craziest groups! AND they have the comfort of being able to make this up as they go along. They don't have to provide historical statements. PappaBear takes this further and claims that gnostics (Paulicians) were woven in the fabric of the true Church!

 

[FSSL]

What is that you and Ransom say frequently?  "Do your own work"

I have...

 

[John Wesley]

A belief, made popular in 1931 that Baptists can trace their roots, in a genealogical succession back to John the Baptist.

People who subscribe to this call themselves (and are know as): Landmarkists, Baptist-briders

The hard-liners are Landmarkists (a legitimate baptism is one administered by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by ..... John the Baptist)

Those uncomfortable with being hard-liners subscribe to what is called the "Spiritual Kinship Theory"

THE PROBLEMATIC BELIEF: The validation of Baptists is based on a succession of Baptist groups going back to John the Baptist.

Practical problems:

• History is based on documentation and verifiable facts. A succession cannot be proven by historical documentation. In fact, a number of statements and documents that do exist is that Baptists, from their beginnings in the 1600s REJECT an affiliation with anabaptists.
• A succession theory violates a primary Baptist distinctive of separation. Why would Baptists want to be identified with antiTrinitarians and full-blown gnostics?
• Since the Bible is the basis of authority, why is a contrived, mythical succession used to validate what a Baptist is?
• Immersion by Baptism and Soul Liberty are not enough to distinguish a group as Baptist.
• Baptist-Briders reject the idea that Baptists are protestants. However, the groups the Baptist-briders say we come from were protesting the Catholic church and broke away at great cost.
• If you are not baptized in a Baptist church, you need to be rebaptized.

Here are the groups identified as "Baptists" in the Trail of Blood. Many are Christian, but not all.

Montanists: Charismatics which believed their revelatory prophecies were either on par or exceeded the authority of Christ and Paul. They allowed dice playing (lol-thrown in to convince the hardended of all Baptists)
Paulicians: Gnostics (enough said)
Waldenses: close in beliefs to Particular Baptists. Calvinists. Interesting... Baptist-briders reject Calvinistic thought. Why would they say they came from them? 
Anabaptists: John Smyth complained in 1608: "...against the term Anabaptist as a name of reproach unjustly cast upon them [Baptists]"
Helwys split from Smyth when Smyth became an Anabaptist.
The Second London Baptist Confession says, clearly: "...which are commonly (though falsly) called ANABAPTISTS"

The 2nd London Baptist Confession is far removed from the general atonement doctrine of Helwys. Also, the Anabaptists themselves said they weren't anabaptists (rebaptizers), for the simple reason that the original infant baptism was not a proper baptism.

As for the "Trail of Blood?" IIRC, that one was delivered by the Angel Moroni on golden tablets, right?

 

[FSSL]

Welcome to the forum John Wesley. I recognize you from the .com, but never interacted (I don't think).

You are spot on. The crazy thing is that there is PLENTY of evidence from John Smyth, Helwys, Jacobus, Kiffin, Knollys and Keach where they are VERY careful to distance themselves from the anabaptists. They did not view them as their genetic successors, even if there were some commonalities (rejection of infant baptism).

History is ALWAYS based on documentation, NOT on what people would like to perceive.

 

[PappaBear]

Hint:  Baptists predate Smyth, even by his own recognition.

Primary source, please.

What is that you and Ransom say frequently?  "Do your own work"

Man, that Traditional Southern Baptists' Statement did a number on you guys, didn't it?  Wonderful!  Wonderful!

What is that you and Ransom say frequently?  "Do your own work"

I have...

Now, have you?  Then you already knew that  in Amsterdam, Smyth was heavily infuenced by the Anabaptists.  So you were consciously aware that he and his group made application for baptism and membership to the Waterlanders in Feb, 1610 as "the true church of Christ" (Anabaptist Mennonites).  In that process he rejected his SE-baptism.  You deceptively questioned this, all the time you were aware that Helwys sent 2 letters urging the Waterlanders not to receive him because he claimed that Smyth's chief aim was to hold to "successionism."

 

[John Wesley]

Welcome to the forum John Wesley. I recognize you from the .com, but never interacted (I don't think).

You are spot on. The crazy thing is that there is PLENTY of evidence from John Smyth, Helwys, Jacobus, Kiffin, Knollys and Keach where they are VERY careful to distance themselves from the anabaptists. They did not view them as their genetic successors, even if there were some commonalities (rejection of infant baptism).

History is ALWAYS based on documentation, NOT on what people would like to perceive.

Thanks for the welcome. Smyth did eventually stray into the Mennonites, but at that particular time I think their main error was pacifisim as they had not yet evolved their "not in the world" works system. Been a long time, so set me straight if I'm wrong about that.

 

[Excelsior]

I have no idea what book was used in my Baptist History class in college. I transferred in and couldn't take the class before graduation because of scheduling conflicts. The Dean signed off on me not taking it since I had more than enough Bible credits to cover that class and then some.

So, I just had to get along with just reading written history to learn church history.

 

[christundivided]

Smyth did eventually stray into the Mennonites, but at that particular time I think their main error was pacifisim as they had not yet evolved their "not in the world" works system. Been a long time, so set me straight if I'm wrong about that.

Yes. PappaBear skipped over the fact Smith was a Baptist BEFORE he was an anabaptist. How can the Baptists claim to come FROM the anabaptists when Smyth defected TO the anabaptists?

The anabaptists also denied original sin...

Some ana's do some don't.

Baptist briders are worse than toe jam fungus. I've actually know a few. I was warned in a camp meeting one time not to preach against them. They said "It might split up the fellowship they had."

 

[FSSL]

It should be added, because the admin got tired typing on his phone, that the idea of having a Baptist Successionism concept to validate the Baptists as the true church gets REAL dicey when liberal churches can actually show a genetic root back to the first churches started in America (Philadelphia) by the English Baptists.

Liberal Baptist churches with a genetic link to the English Baptists have no more claim to a validation of their faith than the Roman Catholics.

 

[bgwilkinson]

It should be added, because the admin got tired typing on his phone, that the idea of having a Baptist Successionism concept to validate the Baptists as the true church gets REAL dicey when liberal churches can actually show a genetic root back to the first churches started in America (Philadelphia) by the English Baptists.

Liberal Baptist churches with a genetic link to the English Baptists have no more claim to a validation of their faith than the Roman Catholics.

Don't forget the Orthodox Church. They are still using the same Greek OT and NT that the Apostles and our LORD used.

 

[PappaBear]

Yes. PappaBear skipped over the fact Smith was a Baptist BEFORE he was an anabaptist. How can the Baptists claim to come FROM the anabaptists when Smyth defected TO the anabaptists?

The anabaptists also denied original sin...

Because of his own statement, his Se-baptism was denied as unqualified (rightly so), and Anabaptist baptism requested to identify with the succession of church authority.  It was Helwys who got bent out of shape and took a minority group to London when the rest of the "Baptists" followed their leader, Smyth.  But ... as he denied original sin and a whole bunch of other Calvinism in his 20 articles, you don't really want to follow Smyth for consistency. 

btw ... the appelation "Baptist" is the shortened form of the original accusation of Smyth, Helwys, et. al. as a "Se-Baptist" because he baptized himself, lacking church authority.  There were plenty of Calvinists among the separatists.  It wasn't about doctrine, but practical baptism for which they were identified.  And that same Se-baptism was not immersion.  Which is another thing he was seeking correction with after being influenced by the Anabaptists and being convinced of the Biblicity of immersion.

 

[Bob H]

Don't forget the Orthodox Church. They are still using the same Greek........... NT that the Apostles and our LORD used.

  And which one was that?