Featured Why we are Baptists

In a sense, it is correct. There are doctrines which we view as distinctive to Baptist theology which were present in such sects as the Waldensians, Donatists, etc. In a sense it is also terribly wrong as we are not the Waldensians, Donatists, etc (and we do not hold identical theologies). During the Reformation the Anabaptists held to and were persecuted for many of the beliefs we hold dear. But we are not Anabaptists.

Just as those who view Baptists as a product of the Reformation, the “trail of blood” presents only a half truth.

More importantly, however, the “trail of blood” advocates tend to insist that there always has been the “true Church” which turns out to be the Baptists…all others were in error. The problem is that all others, if they were Christian, were also the Church….they were also the “true Church” despite what we have identified as error in their theology…if they were “in Christ.”
I agree that we are related to these earlier groups theologically…but this is not “Baptist Successionism.”

 

I do think that we have a “spiritual kinship” with these groups. Much of what distinguishes Baptists from other denominations are what separated these groups from the Catholic Church and later the Reformed churches. I think it is important to remember that these groups at the time of the Reformation (the “Radical Reformers”) were a part of the Reformation in that they joined in the “cause.” Martin Luther later said that they were among them but not a part of them (they held to heresy…like believers baptism, a separation of Church and state, church autonomy, etc.). In short, they felt the Reformation fell short by clinging to “Romish” doctrine. The Reformers excluded them for beliefs that form the identity of Baptists today. But had there never been a Reformation, I doubt there would be Baptists today (even for those who reject Baptists as “protestant,”…which I am often inclined to do).

But I do not know that it is fair to say there have always been “Baptist-like” churches. In a way, yes…but it depends on the doctrine you are examining. The suggestion that the church Christ established would always exist does not necessitate such an unbroken line of “Baptist doctrine.” Even the early churches struggled with error…yet they were still the true Church. The true Church can have misunderstandings in doctrine as long as it holds a true gospel. In other words…our Presbyterian brethren are no less a church than we are.

But yes, I believe that we can identify with those early sects. We do have much in common are in debt to their faithfulness to the truth they understood in Scripture. Many died for the beliefs we hold dear. We are, however, "spiritually related" to others...including the Reformers and even the early Catholic Church (all of God's children are by definition "spiritually related"...we are "in Christ").

 

DHK,

Your quote: “The following are some of the fundamental doctrines to which they held when they went in: And the same are, the fundamental doctrines to which they held when they came out: And the same are the fundamental doctrines to which they now hold.”

I have always wondered who exactly “they” are. What are the groups that went into the Dark Age and came out the same?

At first I thought perhaps the Waldensians (I assumed the Donatists too much a stretch) , but they actually became a part of the Reformation and were influenced by the Reformers…so even if they “went into” the Dark Ages (which they did not), they did not come out the same…although they did remain consistent on many doctrines that are distinctively Baptist.

Anyway….it seems to me that Carroll traces not “the True Church” but particular doctrines that help form the Baptist’s distinctiveness…not necessarily our identity. It is hard to look at the groups he mentions and examine their doctrines without coming away with how different they were from each other and us.

But it doesn’t really matter. The True Church finds its identity in Christ, regardless of error that may creep into its doctrine. If a small town of atheists happen upon a Bible and call out to God and are saved then they inherit a lineage truer than Carroll presents….unaffiliated with previous churches but "children of Abraham." I don't find it odd that one can be saved apart from these ancient churches yet hold similar beliefs...if Scripture has any bearing at all on doctrine.

 

Their beliefs do seem to be more Reformed Baptist than "Baptists" in general.

 

If we look at older “Anabaptist” confessions (for example, The Schleitheim Confession of Faith), it is easy to conclude that Baptists are not theologically a product of the Reformation alone.

We do not hold to Anabaptist theology…but neither do we strictly hold to the theology of the Reformers. We are indebted to both the Reformers and the “Radical Reformers” (who sought to bring the Reformation to a closer biblical stance).