SDA Successionism much like KJVO Baptist Successionism

bgwilkinson

Active member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
8
Points
38
In Ellen G. Whites classic book The Great Controversy, she traces the SDA Church back to the beginning much like Baptist Successionists do.

She believes that she has shown that the SDA is the only true church, sorta like Baptist Successionists also try to do.

IMHO this book has the seeds of both KJVO and Baptist Successionism in its pages.

Here is a link to the chapter on Mr. Miller a man much like Harold Camping with wild illogical ideas not supported by history or reason in the mold of the KJVO.

http://www.earlysda.com/gc/gc_chap22.html

This is one of SDAs most Holy Books.
 
I'm allergic to SDA. They don't seem heretical, except for being very legalistic... but that's too heretical for me.
 
bgwilkinson said:
In Ellen G. Whites classic book The Great Controversy, she traces the SDA Church back to the beginning much like Baptist Secessionists do.

You know, it's suprising how much pseudo-theological crud can be traced back to the SDAs.  In addition to this, they gave us the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Worldwide Church of God (Armstrongism), KJV-onlyism, and the Branch Davidians. Probably a whole bunch of other kooks I'm not aware of, too.
 
Just a small clarification. It is Successionism, not Secessionism.

PappaBear... reporting this thread is absurd. You claim a succession from groups far worse than SDA.
 
FSSL said:
Just a small clarification. It is Successionism, not Secessionism.

PappaBear... reporting this thread is absurd. You claim a succession from groups far worse than SDA.

Thanks. Unlike Proud KJVOs I can admit when I make a mistake.
Some might even accuse me of doing that on purpose.
 
bgwilkinson said:
FSSL said:
Just a small clarification. It is Successionism, not Secessionism.

PappaBear... reporting this thread is absurd. You claim a succession from groups far worse than SDA.

Thanks. Unlike Proud KJVOs I can admit when I make a mistake.
Some might even accuse me of doing that on purpose.

Good thread! I never knew the SDAs had successionist ideas... It will be interesting to see if they overlap with The Trail of Blood.
 
bgwilkinson said:
IMHO is book has the seeds of both KJVO and Baptist Sucessionism in its pages.

What came first? A SDA successionism or Baptist successionism theory?

SDAs had this theory in 1858...
DB Ray, a Baptist in America, in 1883

However, DB Ray is predated by Orchard who goes back to 1638
 
FSSL said:
Just a small clarification. It is Successionism, not Secessionism.

PappaBear... reporting this thread is absurd. You claim a succession from groups far worse than SDA.

Only for the purposes of clarification to readers:  I did report the thread as in the wrong place in the Fighting forum, not in contradiction to anything in the posts.  It is noted that he DID move it, as suggested.  <shrug>
 
FSSL said:
What came first? A SDA successionism or Baptist successionism theory?

SDAs had this theory in 1858...
DB Ray, a Baptist in America, in 1883

However, DB Ray is predated by Orchard who goes back to 1638

My, my.  Just how contradictory can one squirelly guy be with another?

FSSL said:
  • 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.
 
None of the founding Baptists believed in successionism. G.H. Orchard was not a founding Baptist.
 
FSSL said:
None of the founding Baptists believed in successionism. G.H. Orchard was not a founding Baptist.

In your view, was John Smyth a "founding Baptist"?

And to drive the point of this question home...

[quote author=Jason K. Lee, The Theology of John Smyth:  Puritan, Separatist, Baptist, Mennonite"]Helwys and some others wrote two letters to discourage the Mennonites from accepting them.  In his second letter to the Mennonites urging them not to accept Smyth, Helwys refers to successionism as "Antichrists chiefe hold."230  He says that holding to succession is Smyth's main reason for seeking the union with the Mennonites.  Helwys' first letter to the Mennonite church is undated, but the second can be dated 22 March 1610.231[/quote]
 
I agree with the above. Smyth BROKE FROM the Baptists because he developed the idea of succession and sought baptism from the Mennonites.

If the founding Baptists believed in successionism, there would have been no breaking from Helwys.

Helwys continued on with the Baptists. THEY rejected the idea of succession.

Smyth's contribution to the Baptist beginnings was believer's baptism. He wigged out and Helwys continued on with the Baptists.

It was successionism that caused him to leave the Baptists. Not good for your side of the argument.
 
FSSL said:
I agree with the above. Smyth BROKE FROM the Baptists because he developed the idea of succession and sought baptism from the Mennonites.

If the founding Baptists believed in successionism, there would have been no breaking from Helwys.

Helwys continued on with the Baptists. THEY rejected the idea of succession.

Smyth's contribution to the Baptist beginnings was believer's baptism. He wigged out and Helwys continued on with the Baptists.

It was successionism that caused him to leave the Baptists. Not good for your side of the argument.

You seem to have your sides wrong.  Read the quote again -- better yet, get the book!  It was not Smyth who "broke" but Helwys who broke away and took only 10 followers with him.  Which is one of the reasons that Smyth, among actual Baptists, has the greater position in Baptist History.
 
PappaBear said:
It was not Smyth who "broke" but Helwys who broke away and took only 10 followers with him.

The quote goes like this: "...Smyth's main reason for seeking the union with the Mennonites."

Smyth
Seeking
Mennonites

PappaBear said:
Which is one of the reasons that Smyth, among actual Baptists, has the greater position in Baptist History.

Let's use YOUR favorite sources...
  • Armitage who says: "he [Smyth] looked upon his baptism as defective, and withdrew from the Baptists..."
  • Christian who says: "As troublesome as Smyth was to all parties he was conscientious....After the exclusion of Smyth, in 1609, Helwys became pastor and leading man of the Baptist church in Amsterdam....Between Helwys and the Mennonites there was never an effort for union."
We see that Smyth broke away, was troublesome and Helwys became the leading General Baptist from there on. "Smyth has the greater position..." what a farce!

It must be very convenient to make up history. It becomes inconvenient when you are not supported even by your own favorite sources...
 
FSSL said:
Let's use YOUR favorite sources...
  • Armitage who says: "he [Smyth] looked upon his baptism as defective, and withdrew from the Baptists..."

It must be very convenient to make up history. It becomes inconvenient when you are not supported even by your own favorite sources...

Convenience and inconvenience.  Hmmmm...  I know it is a bit demanding, probably inconvenient for a busy man such as yourself, but could you please document the source for your above Armitage quote?  You see, I really do not want to insinuate that you are a liar or anything like that, but what I am finding is that your snippet above belongs to Armitage's writing about Roger Williams, not John Smyth.

[quote author=Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists: Traced by Their Vital Principles and Practices, page 660]
THE AMERICAN BAPTISTS

IV. THE PROVIDENCE AND NEWPORT CHURCHES
The hand of God appears to have led Roger Williams to plant the good seed of the kingdom in that colony, and then to step aside, lest any flesh should glory in his presence. In that day there was a very respectable class of men, both in England and the older colonies, nicknamed 'Seekers,' simply because they were earnest inquirers after truth; and, concluding that it was impossible to find it then on earth, they looked for its new manifestation from heaven. They sought a visible and apostolic line of purely spiritual character, something after the order of the late Edward Irving, and not finding this, they waited for a renewal of Apostles with special gifts of the Spirit to attest their credentials. When Williams withdrew from the Baptists he was classed with these. His theory of the apostolate seems to have been the cause of his withdrawal, and of his doubt concerning the validity of his baptism. A few years later, in his 'Bloody Tenet' and his 'Hireling Ministry,' he denied that a ministry existed which was capable of administering the ordinances, for in 'the rule of Antichrist the true ministry was lost, and he waited for its restoration, much after John Smyth's view, in a new order of succession. Of course he looked upon his baptism as defective, and withdrew from the Baptists. His was not an unusual case at that period.[/quote]

Though Smyth is mentioned in the sentence, it is very obvious Armitage is talking about Roger Williams' withdrawal from the Baptists.  In fact, it is interesting how he is using Smyth in the context of a "new order of succession," but that is another issue.  I am mainly concerned here about the validity of you applying this quote from Armitage to Smyth instead of Williams with your brackets.

So, where did you get it from?  Can you provide documentation such as book and page #?  I would like to see the entire quote in its initial setting to verify if Armitage perhaps did use the exact same wording to speak of Smyth as he did of Williams.  I just want to make sure everyone is aware of how much confidence we can have in your ability to read and relate what is actually there, not twist and misapply or misquote like some do.

Thank You.
 
PappaBear said:
Though Smyth is mentioned in the sentence, it is very obvious Armitage is talking about Roger Williams' withdrawal from the Baptists.  In fact, it is interesting how he is using Smyth in the context of a "new order of succession," but that is another issue.  I am mainly concerned here about the validity of you applying this quote from Armitage to Smyth instead of Williams with your brackets.

Uggh!! You are correct. The paragraph was about Williams. That was an oversight. The pronoun was quite a distance from the antecedent. Yeah, I got the source wrong on this one.

I just want to make sure everyone is aware of how much confidence we can have in your ability to read and relate what is actually there, not twist and misapply or misquote like some do.

Since you want a little honesty, do you still deny that Smyth withdrew from the Baptists?

Isn't it a bit absurd to appeal to "everyone" when you gave us a quote that says Smyth sought the Mennonites? Then you deny that Smyth broke away from the Baptists and you claim that Smith has a greater position in Baptist History.

Your points have been thoroughly decimated by your own quotes, my flub of a source, notwithstanding.
 
PappaBear said:
You seem to have your sides wrong.  Read the quote again -- better yet, get the book!  It was not Smyth who "broke" but Helwys who broke away and took only 10 followers with him.  Which is one of the reasons that Smyth, among actual Baptists, has the greater position in Baptist History.

Your book says that "Smyth sought union with the Mennonites." Does it really matter if Smyth left on his own accord or was expelled from the Helwys group? Are you trying a red herring to get people distracted from the points I made above?

If the founding Baptists believed in successionism, there would have been no breaking from Helwys.

Helwys continued on with the Baptists. THEY rejected the idea of succession.

Smyth's contribution to the Baptist beginnings was believer's baptism. He wigged out and Helwys continued on with the Baptists.

It was successionism that caused him to leave the Baptists. Not good for your side of the argument.
 
PappaBear said:
Hmmmm...  I know it is a bit demanding, probably inconvenient for a busy man such as yourself...

I am sure, by my reply on the other thread, you wish I didn't have the time to deal with your myth!
 
FSSL said:
Uggh!! You are correct. The paragraph was about Williams. That was an oversight. The pronoun was quite a distance from the antecedent. Yeah, I got the source wrong on this one.

Page 660, all the way to part IV under the American Baptists section, and you just missed the distance in a sentence between the pronoun and antecedent?  Does context mean nothing?

Well, thank you.


FSSL said:
Since you want a little honesty, do you still deny that Smyth withdrew from the Baptists?

I still maintain that the Anabaptists which Smyth applied to are synonomous with "Baptists."  Rejecting his own se-baptism and seeking baptism under a proper line of authority was the right thing to do.

FSSL said:
my flub of a source

Thank you.
 
FSSL said:
PappaBear said:
You seem to have your sides wrong.  Read the quote again -- better yet, get the book!  It was not Smyth who "broke" but Helwys who broke away and took only 10 followers with him.  Which is one of the reasons that Smyth, among actual Baptists, has the greater position in Baptist History.

Your book says that "Smyth sought union with the Mennonites." Does it really matter if Smyth left on his own accord or was expelled from the Helwys group? Are you trying a red herring to get people distracted from the points I made above?
First, I am not the author, Lee is.  It is a book I referenced, and does not mean that I have to agree 100% with every thing the author states.  It made my point.  Secondly, it does matter that it was not Smyth that left.  I guess it depends on how you define the word "left."  If by left, you meant moving, then it was Helwys who left and went to England.  If by the word "left" you mean splitting from a church and going to start or join another, then it is Helwys who left when he abandoned the believers in Amsterdam and went and STARTED A NEW CHURCH in London due to his written disagreements with Smyth over his direction.  On the other hand, if by "left" you mean growing in grace and understanding of the scriptures so that you do not remain in ignorance, then I will agree that it is Smyth that left Helwys and his rebels behind.

FSSL said:
Helwys continued on with the Baptists. THEY rejected the idea of succession.
  Continued on, alright, all the way to England.  It was the Amsterdam church that continued to grow in their understanding of the scriptures and matured into following the Baptist distinctives.
 
Top