"the original Baptist church"

[menageriekeeper]

"The SBC is the orginal Baptist church"

Laughing done?

This remark was made to an acquaintance of mine and I know its not true, but I can't think of a single resource to give her to explain how things really worked (except the BB of course).

Help? I would prefer an online source if possible, but a book title would be fine.

Oh. And someone tell me that when the young man who made this comment gets to SWBTS that they will teach him SBC history.

 

[TCassidy]

The First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, founded in 30 AD, of course!

(Sorry, I couldn't resist!)

The first churches with the name Baptist have their roots in the restoration movement in England in the very early 17th century. The first General Baptist Church was founded in 1609 under the leadership of John Smyth and the first Particular Baptist Church was founded in 1616 under the Pastoral leadership of Henry Jacob.

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 in Augusta, Georgia.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Love it!

Did the two churches (general and particular) ever join together or were they always a little bit different?

Which group do most American Baptists decend from?

Am I correct that Southern Baptists were a split from a northern group? And what caused the split?

 

[TCassidy]

Love it!

Did the two churches (general and particular) ever join together or were they always a little bit different?

No. One (General) was Arminian and the other (Particular) was Calvinist. And you know how well they get along!

Which group do most American Baptists decend from?

Both.

Am I correct that Southern Baptists were a split from a northern group? And what caused the split?

Yes, from the old American Baptist Union. The SBC broke away in 1845 but the Northern (now American) Baptist Convention was not officially founded until 1907. The main reason for the split was the regional differences regarding the impending Civil War.

 

[Salty]

Love it!

... Which group do most American Baptists decend from?

Am I correct that Southern Baptists were a split from a northern group? And what caused the split?

First, the SBC is not a (local) church. It is a fellowship of churches with missions as it purpose.

The SBC was formed in 1845, when northern Baptist churches would not allow Southern slaveholders to be missionaries. At the time there was no Northern (later American) Baptist Convention; only local associations. They did not form until the early 20th century.

BTW, technically, the SBC is only in operation for 3 days a year - the annual meeting.
And many SBC'ers consider themselves independent - as the SBC can not demand a church take certain action.

 

[menageriekeeper]

First, the SBC is not a (local) church. It is a fellowship of churches with missions as it purpose.

LOL, now that I was quick to explain! That was part of the answer to why there are soooo many different versions of Baptists.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Now for the Northern Baptist side of the family

Yes, the 1845 date is the considered the date of the formal splitting up of the Triennial Baptist Convention on Missions. However, matters had been simmering for a decade or so before that date.

A good treatment of the situation can be found in Francis Wayland's Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches. According to FW, the main bone of contention was as he described it, the principle that no Baptist church could be represented in a body beyond itself and be bound to that body's decisions. As Hiscox wrote, all church councils are advisory.

So, Baptists in the North organized themselves along functional lines. Like minded individuals organized themselves in various boards to carry out various ministries NB Foreign and Home Missionary Society, the NB Publication Society, ect. Individual churches would financially support these endeavors. But, it was a given church's call on which if any organization it would support.

 

[Jim1999]

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/wales.associations.html

You might consider reading this before accepting the Anglican priest, John Smyth, as the first baptist. He was never a baptist and died connected to the Dutch Mennonites.

There were baptists in Wales early on, and in fact, the Welsh Baptists established the first two churches in England.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[menageriekeeper]

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/wales.associations.html

You might consider reading this before accepting the Anglican priest, John Smyth, as the first baptist. He was never a baptist and died connected to the Dutch Mennonites.

There were baptists in Wales early on, and in fact, the Welsh Baptists established the first two churches in England.

Cheers,

Jim

Does this mean that Baptists can't even agree on Baptist history?? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Dr. Walter]

The first churches with the name Baptist have their roots in the restoration movement in England in the very early 17th century.

Rolland Bainton, the mennonite scholar claims that the 16th century European Anabaptists called themselves "Baptists" in response to the epitaph "Ana-baptist" - Rolland Bainton, The Reformation of the 16th Century, p. 99

"To call these people Anabaptists, that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as, infant baptism was no baptism at all. They called themselves simply Baptists, not re-Baptists. The offensive name was fastened to them in order to bring them under the penalty of the Justinian Code against the Donatists"

 

[Jim1999]

Where two baptists have assembled, you usually have three opinions!

Basptist history in the UK is spurious because of the Church of England being the state church, and many of the dissident leaders were originally ordained to that ministry.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/wales.associations.html

You might consider reading this before accepting the Anglican priest, John Smyth, as the first baptist. He was never a baptist and died connected to the Dutch Mennonites.

There were baptists in Wales early on, and in fact, the Welsh Baptists established the first two churches in England.

Cheers,

Jim

ALL RIGHT JIM!!! Da gweithia (Good Work!!)

 

[Jon-Marc]

It's no wonder Christians can't get along. They're too busy breaking off into different sects with slightly different beliefs and saying, "We don't agree with THAT Baptist church." In my home city there is a 7th Day Baptist church that meets in another church that uses it on Sunday.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It's no wonder Christians can't get along. They're too busy breaking off into different sects with slightly different beliefs and saying, "We don't agree with THAT Baptist church." In my home city there is a 7th Day Baptist church that meets in another church that uses it on Sunday.

Jon, I will see you 2 churches & raise you one.

 

[Jim1999]

It is one thing to be a baptist by conviction and try to follow baptist history as much as possibe. It is then another thing for us to claim exclusivism, and discredit every other believer.

I am firmly baptist, but I attended a non-denominational Bible College, and also taught in a school that trained Anglican, United Church and Presbyterian ministers.

This did not exclude me from being a baptist. This did not discredit these folks from believing their church was also correct.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TCassidy]

Does this mean that Baptists can't even agree on Baptist history??

No. We were talking about the first churches that were called "Baptist" by the people themselves. In my opinion the word "Baptist" is not a denominational name but rather a doctrinal identity. Therefore, in my opinion, "Baptist" churches (Baptist in doctrinal identity, not denominational name) have existed all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history.

The first Baptist church in Wales, at Olchon, was established in 1633.

And I agree Smyth was not what we would call a Baptist today. Of course, neither was Roger Williams, often (wrongly) given credit for establishing the first Baptist church in the US when, in reality, that honor goes to Dr. John Clarke of Newport.

There is no doubt that Williams founded a church which he called "Baptist" in Providence prior to Clarke founding the church in Newport, but my argument is that the church in Providence was not a Baptist church in doctrine and practice until sometime around 1645.

Williams had baptized himself prior to leaving Europe, then, in 1638 he was first baptized by Ezekiel Holliman then he, in turn, baptized Holliman! That, the claim was made, constituted the first Baptist church in the US.

However, I, being a Baptist, believe a church is an "organized, assembly of BAPTIZED believers." And, I, being a Baptist, believe that baptism is a CHURCH ordinance, so, two unbaptized people cannot baptize each other and claim to be a church. An already organized church must be the baptismal authority or the baptism is not scriptural and thus the church so founded is likewise illegitimate.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Thanks for confirming the Cymry / Welsh in all of it. A people who developed the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones cant be all bad...LOL

 

[TCassidy]

Thanks for confirming the Cymry / Welsh in all of it. A people who developed the likes of Catherine Zeta Jones cant be all bad...LOL

Not me! I'm Irish!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Celtic & not Anglo Saxon.....Your OK in my book. I'd even have a beer with you.

And you sing Im told.....taint bad.

Sorry....I would Copy Catherine Zeta Jones to this but dont think the wife would approve....Thats one of our national treasures!!!

 

[TCassidy]

Celtic & not Anglo Saxon.....Your OK in my book. I'd even have a beer with you.

And you sing Im told.....taint bad.

Yes, I sing. Badly, but after a couple beers, who cares!