"the original Baptist church"

[Jim1999]

Just wanted to ad this quote for interest:

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. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.

—Charles H. Spurgeon



​

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Actually, the move in the early 1800s was from John Gill's position to Andrew Fuller's position. For an account of the move, please see Francis Wayland's Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches.

General Baptists never took good root in America. The only group of Baptists who can trace their "descent" from the General Baptists are probably Free Will Baptists. At the same time, while the large majority of Baptist grouping had their American origins in Particular Baptists, there was a large move away from Particular Baptist ideas and doctrines starting in the early-mid 1800s. Nowadays, the influence of dispensationlism has moved many Baptists in an even different doctrinal direction such that few groups of Baptists could be considering doctrinal "descendants" of either General or Particular Baptists.

So, while Particular Baptists were the initial "roots" of most Baptists groups in America, the large majority have long separated from those "roots".

 

[Salty]

From Squires quote: "the large majority have long separated from those "roots".

Sounds like typical Baptists to me :laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[dwmoeller1]

Actually, the move in the early 1800s was from John Gill's position to Andrew Fuller's position. For an account of the move, please see Francis Wayland's Notes on the Principles and Practices of Baptist Churches.

I am fairly certain that trend began to come to an end in the mid 30s. At that time we see the rise of Finney and a move away from Particular Baptist theology altogether (Gill or Fuller's version).

 

[Ed B]

"Where did you get the idea nobody was scripturally baptized from Pentecost until the Anabaptists (who, for the most part, were not immersionists!)?

Pentecost is too early, but I got that idea from readings of secular and religious histories from the early church fathers through migration era Western Europe and post-conquest Britain. There were reformers who pop up that I can identify with and admire. The Waldensians (sp?) are an example who, at least during their founders time, attempted to revert to primitive, Scriptural Christianity - though they still held to many Roman doctrines. The fact people recognized the need once they got their hands on a Bible they could read tells us that scriptural Christianity as we recognize it was largely unpracticed in an organized form during the interval from roughly Constantine to shortly after the beginning of the Reformation. Just my opinion.

In like manner who was qualified to baptized the first Particular and General Baptist in a way that qualified them as proper Baptists by your definition?

"Any baptized believers.

This is what I assumed must have happened. Very much like Roger Williams (Note: I am not a Roger Williams apologist)

“By 1608/09, Smyth was convinced his Separatist church was not valid. Most of the members had only infant baptism, and the church was formed on the basis of a “covenant,” rather than a confession of faith in Christ. Smyth therefore led the church to disband in 1608/09 and re-form on a new basis–a personal confession of faith in Christ, followed by believer’s baptism. Since none of the members had been baptized as believers, Smyth had to make a new beginning. He baptized himself and then baptized the others. His baptism was by sprinkling or pouring, but it was for believers only.”

http://www.baptisthistory.org/bhhs/baptistorigins/baptistbeginnings.html

Here we see John got it wrong with that sprinkling stuff, but he was headed down the right track.

"Not at all. Christ made a promise that all the authority of hell itself would not prevail against His church. I, for one, believe Him. Don't you?

Indeed I do. I also think that organized Christianity lost its way in regard to believer’s baptism for many centuries. And by Baptist standards a proper Baptism is done by a local Church. Thus Roger Williams and John Smyth couldn't find a Baptist Church and or scripturally baptized Christian who could provide them with a baptism that would pass muster by today's standards. So they baptized themselves to get the ball rolling. Chicken or egg.

 

[TCassidy]

I believe history tells us that all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history, and especially during the primacy of Rome (6th through the 16th centuries) true believers could be found meeting in secret in forest glades, secluded valleys, in hidden catacombs, etc. The true gospel was never lost and "the faith" which was "once delivered" to the saints was never completely eradicated from the earth.

I think we may have underestimated the nomadic nature of itinerate preachers during that time.

 

[Jim1999]

Thus Roger Williams and John Smyth couldn't find a Baptist Church...
-------------------------------------------

They should have gone to Wales from whence came the first two Baptist Churches in England.

Remember, those two blokes were chased out of England because of their viewpoints. It is somewhat strange that they should suddenly become "baptists" when there supposedly were none!!!!!!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[TCassidy]

Thus Roger Williams and John Smyth couldn't find a Baptist Church...
-------------------------------------------

They should have gone to Wales from whence came the first two Baptist Churches in England.

Remember, those two blokes were chased out of England because of their viewpoints. It is somewhat strange that they should suddenly become "baptists" when there supposedly were none!!!!!!

Cheers,

Jim

Yes. How soon the "restorationists" forget the Church at Hill Cliff. Founded in the 9th century, wasn't it?

 

[Jim1999]

Yes, where do people think St. Patrick got his baptist theology to reach the lost in Ireland as a missionary.....The Catholic pope didn't calim him and make him a saint until after he died................duh!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Jim1999]

If I remember correctly, Hill Cliff Baptist Church was founded in the early 1600's.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[rsr]

The Hill Cliffe Baptist Church itself claims it was founded in 1639, just before the English Civil War, as a result of religious persecution.

There is no documentary evidence I know of that would place its founding much earlier, though some Baptist historians have pushed its origins into the dim past.

 

[TCassidy]

Some historians connect Hill Cliffe Church with the Lollards and Aaron Arlington way back in 987 AD. I have not been able to substantiate that claim.

 

[Jim1999]

Yes,mate, I think I said that, but not so many details.

There are two other churches in the Gloucester area that claim a much earlier founding...that is right on the Welsh border and makes some sense. I don't know how reliable Welsh Church history is. I have seen discrepancies.

Cheers,

Jim