The First Baptist

Dr. Bob, regardless of what Anderson's opinions of Baptist history might be (and the fact that the site lists this book under history), I think to view The First Baptist as any kind of statement on history is to miss the scope and purpose of the book. For example, from the foreword:

Glen, I'm not aware of another book with a purpose exactly like Anderson's in The First Baptist. In spite of some differences of opinion with him, I would recommend it. Sorry that I don't know with what to compare it.

[ January 13, 2003, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

It is concluded, from the details here given, that the first Christians were Baptists; that the baptism of infants commenced about the fourth century; (and) that persons professing the peculiarities of the Baptists were found in different parts of the world. Hosea Holcombe, 1840, pg 14

(Hosea Holcombe (1780-1841) was one of the founders of the Alabama Baptist State Convention and served as president of that body for six years. He published the above in his A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Alabama; with a Miniature History of the Denomination from the Apostolic Age Down to the Present Time in 1840. Notice what this early Baptists believed about the origins of the Baptist denomination)


"One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism." Ephesians 4:5

________________________________________________

Are you lads familiar with this bloke and his writings?

Cheers,

Jim

[ January 15, 2003, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

I have read about Holcombe, but don't remember reading anything by him. He was a widely known and well-respected minister in Alabama about the time of the missions controversy (1830-40's), and was very active in promoting the "missionary" side.

 

Brother Bob,

This book was obtained through the Landmark people in Kentucky. I suspect that Holcombe was a Landmarkist. I lean in that direction, but have never called myself such.....actually, I have enjoyed fellowship with all stripes of Baptists and generally fit into their situation.

Thank you for the information.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I would expect that Holcombe's positions were similar to those who hold what is called Landmark principles today. The comment you quoted certainly is. Holcombe's writing, A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists in Alabama, would have pre-dated the term "Landmark."

 

I aleays had a problem with the "Baptists arent Protestant" statement so I would have to give credit to the begining of the Baptist movement to Conrad Grebel (1498-1526) who founded the Swiss Brethren who were dubbed " Anabaptists" by their enemies. Or maybe Menno Simons, another anabaptist preacher.

 

I don't think you can go to the Anabaptists for our origins. The first London Confession was impart drawn up for the stated purpose of distinguishing ourselves from the anabaptists. With their pacifism and quaker-esque view of the nature of man. i like the John smyth view

 

Our main contention is that there were baptistic peoples all down through church history and that they/we were never a part of the Church of Rome, and hence, we are not and never were Protestant.

The only time I was Protestant was as an army chaplain where there were only two designations: Protestant and Roman Catholic.

I have no question that John Smyth was the first Baptist, and the origin of the English Baptists, a great mix of Calvinist and Arminian theologies.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I see what you're saying. Really I don't call myself a protestant. one thing, and i might be misunderstanding you, even though a group (donatist, waldenians ect..) may have held to one or two of the baptist distinctives I don't think that makes them Baptistic in the sense of an unbroken "trail of blood" or "trail of principals." Also, granting that there were groups who held to some of our views - doesn't makes...organically, if i can use that term, connected to them in the sense of an unbroken line of being bapitized by another "baptist." I'm not quite sure if that's your position, though.
I would contend that the early Baptists themselves i.e. Thomas helwys,who split from smyth, contended that succesionism was not necc.
thanks
reub

 

The development of doctrines is evolutionary. The first century church did not come with a complete set of doctrines. They had a disorganized garden of scriptural truths, yet to be organized in a systematic order.

Those of us who adhere to the landmark idea do not claim that "Baptist" churches existed as such, but the concepts were there, albeit scattered abroad. We can find many errors, but also similarities. Hence, the baptist churches existed from square one,,,,,,and always existed outside the Church of Rome.

I would never make this a test of fellowship and you could never get me excited if you differed on what I say. It just isn't that important. It is just a point of interest for me.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I see what you're saying, i was curious, though is that the predominate view among landmarkists? I seemed to get the impression they were more hardline about their view. J.m. carrol "Baptists have an Unbroken line of churches since Christ." (Trail of Blood.) and J.R. Graves "All Christian communities during the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination." (A concise history of baptist in england in 1838) Is that the view you hold? It seems graves and carrol claim these christians were baptists and they knew it. From what i hear you saying it seems more like the "Succession of principals" or "trail of truth" view as oppossed to landmarkism?

 

reubdog:

That is my view. I know landmarkist, some anyway, who are quite rabid on the point that there were baptists all along, even though they didn't call themselves "Baptist".

Baptist churches, on the other hand, have been evolving since Smyth into what we have to-day. Even to-day there is a plethora of doctrinal beliefs and peculiarities to each branch of the Baptists.

In Canada, for instance, you would find a vast difference between fundamentalists, USA style, and Canadian style. Even in my own Fellowship there is just about every stripe of Baptist...some have split away to join more exclusive groups.

The important thing to me is that the church organization is evolving; it is changing; it is meeting the present to face the future, and this has happened all down through the centuries, albeit slower at some periods because of travel, means of communication, etc.

Imagine what it would have been like to have a computer just 50 odd years ago when I started out...It boggles the mind, but where would we be to-day? From candles to lamps to full lighting; from dip pens, to fountain pens, to ballpens, typewriters and now computers......unbelievable!

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim,

good stuff, i'm a lot more sympathetic to your view than the LM's.
nice thread
reubdog

 

I'd def. agree that there was "something in the air" we just don't know to what degree this influenced the early baptists. Succesionism is so ...seductive. I would love to believe it, man I'd love to believe Organic succes. but there's just not enough evidence.