• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

John Clarke

Les Potter

New Member
I am looking for information of where John Clarke was baptist and/or ordained. Most writers say he arrived to America as a Protestant separatist and later began baptizing people. But this conflicts with organic succession. Some cite that he fellowshipped with Baptists, which indicates he must have been one. Anyway, I would like to find if there is anything out with this information. There is one author that claimed that Clarke came from a Baptist church in London whose roots went to the apostles. But that author is DB Ray. He gave no citation whatsoever and elsewhere made up a lot of facts. Not to mention wresting Scripture to fit his amillennial, preterist-historicist religious premise. Shackleford quotes Ray on this but still, no citation. I would like to find that Ray was somehow right, but from a more authoritative source. Thanks.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
Les, you may not get much help here as few hold the myth of any "Baptist succession" back to the apostles. Have not seen many discussions of the Landmark ilk over the 25 years the BB has existed.

If there are, a post with more direct question (rather than just a preacher's name) might gain more responses. God speed in your quest for real sources of support.
 

Ben1445

Active Member
Have you seen this work from the Baptist Standard Bearer?
John Clarke
I hope this is helpful for your Baptist history study.
I did gather that you are a sucessionist. I agree with Dr. Bob and would go further in saying that this doctrine falls into the category of endless genealogies that we are told to avoid.

1 Timothy 1:4
Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Titus 3:9
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

Because we are followers of Christ, it doesn’t matter who witnessed to us or who baptized us. Christ is our Saviour and there is no eternal benefit in following any succession of men. There being no basis for such claims in Scripture, and rather instructions to avoid the like, I find this doctrine to be a distraction from what God would have us be doing.
It does indeed minister questions rather than answers. Would you find yourself in trouble as a Baptist without a heritage? Do you lose out some privilege because of the works of a generation long past and untraceable? We have a sure hope of things in Christ and not in men.
I do enjoy studying history and I find it profitable to know about people in history. But to have in the foundation of my faith, anything but the Word and work of Christ I find to be a corruption of teaching and a distraction from the Lord.
 

Les Potter

New Member
If I may be clear, there is no paper trail linking any church to the apostles. That would indeed find us entrenched in pride and endless genealogies. However, the doctrine of Christ is still there in all 6 principles, as well as the promise of Christ. There is a matter of authority. A church starts a church, and only the Lord's church was given authority to baptize. So catholic immersion, or any other immersion is not regarded Scripturally. This is indeed why we were called anabaptist (re-baptizers) by the Protestants and Catholics. But all that aside, I do want to find information on John Clarke. What others here espouse is more like Roger Williams. He was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman and he, in turn baptized Ezekiel Holliman. That is the origin of their baptism. Williams later renounced this, noting that an unbaptized (and therefore also non-ordained) person cannot baptize. This is a matter of principled succession vs organic. Roger Williams, by his own admission, was not a Baptist but embraced Baptist ideals. Today, many that identify as Baptist would accept his baptism as well as that of any immersion. Whether it be Campbelite, Pentecostal, or any immersion practiced by anyone. Others will accept only immersion if it is denominationally "Baptist" (though many Baptists are no different than Protestants in doctrine and who accept all other forms of immersion). This seems rather inconsistent. It should be based on Biblical consistency, not a mere name.
 
Last edited:

Ben1445

Active Member
If I may be clear, there is no paper trail linking any church to the apostles. That would indeed find us entrenched in pride and endless genealogies. However, the doctrine of Christ is still there in all 6 principles, as well as the promise of Christ. There is a matter of authority. A church starts a church, and only the Lord's church was given authority to baptize. So catholic immersion, or any other immersion is not regarded Scripturally. This is indeed why we were called anabaptist (re-baptizers) by the Protestants and Catholics. But all that aside, I do want to find information on John Clarke. What others here espouse is more like Roger Williams. He was baptized by Ezekiel Holliman and he, in turn baptized Ezekiel Holliman. That is the origin of their baptism. Williams later renounced this, noting that an unbaptized (and therefore also non-ordained) person cannot baptize. This is a matter of principled succession vs organic. Roger Williams, by his own admission, was not a Baptist but embraced Baptist ideals. Today, many that identify as Baptist would accept his baptism as well as that of any immersion. Whether it be Campbelite, Pentecostal, or any immersion practiced by anyone. Others will accept only immersion if it is denominationally "Baptist" (though many Baptists are no different than Protestants in doctrine and who accept all other forms of immersion). This seems rather inconsistent. It should be based on Biblical consistency, not a mere name.
I disagree with you on the importance of any sort of succession. This makes it as if a person could not be saved were they to pick up God’s Word and read it to the understanding and belief in Jesus Christ. And since I don’t believe in Baptismal regeneration, a person who has only read Scripture, by the successional logic now has to be sure that Roger Williams is not in his baptismal tree. This is indeed the very essence of endless genealogies with or without a paper trail.
 

Les Potter

New Member
I didn't say anything about salvation. One foundational premise of Protestantism that makes Biblical ecclesiology hard for them to understand is that they make "church" and "salvation" synonymous. This is, in fact a main foundational matter. the Bible teaches salvation is by grace through faith, by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It is not of works. Nor is it by "church." Catholicism taught that salvation = "church" (the universal visible catholic version). Her daughters had to justify their departure from Rome, so they devised a universal, *invisible* "church" of salvation. Thus, they claim that all who are saved were mystically and invisibly baptized into this invisible "body." Thus, you *do* believe in baptismal salvation, only that it is invisible. Baptists reject baptism as having any part of salvation. We also believe there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Protestant Baptists have two baptisms. Their water baptism is a picture of a spirit baptism. I am not trying to debate you, but hoping you will just consider what I am saying. You have said you disagree. That is fine. But if you want to understand where we are coming from, consider this foundational matter. Protestant Baptists are so ingrained with the idea that church=salvation, though we always denied it. They use the word "church" for Christianity. They speak of the "rapture of the church." Whereas the Bible speaks of the catching away (rapture) is of the SAINTS. That means ALL who are saved, not just the church. Then when we speak of how there is a difference between true churches and the family of God, they see it through their lens and claim that we think we are the "only ones saved." They misunderstand because they won't see it from a Biblical premise.
 

Ben1445

Active Member
I didn't say anything about salvation. One foundational premise of Protestantism that makes Biblical ecclesiology hard for them to understand is that they make "church" and "salvation" synonymous. This is, in fact a main foundational matter. the Bible teaches salvation is by grace through faith, by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It is not of works. Nor is it by "church." Catholicism taught that salvation = "church" (the universal visible catholic version). Her daughters had to justify their departure from Rome, so they devised a universal, *invisible* "church" of salvation. Thus, they claim that all who are saved were mystically and invisibly baptized into this invisible "body." Thus, you *do* believe in baptismal salvation, only that it is invisible. Baptists reject baptism as having any part of salvation. We also believe there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Protestant Baptists have two baptisms. Their water baptism is a picture of a spirit baptism. I am not trying to debate you, but hoping you will just consider what I am saying. You have said you disagree. That is fine. But if you want to understand where we are coming from, consider this foundational matter. Protestant Baptists are so ingrained with the idea that church=salvation, though we always denied it. They use the word "church" for Christianity. They speak of the "rapture of the church." Whereas the Bible speaks of the catching away (rapture) is of the SAINTS. That means ALL who are saved, not just the church. Then when we speak of how there is a difference between true churches and the family of God, they see it through their lens and claim that we think we are the "only ones saved." They misunderstand because they won't see it from a Biblical premise.
I am not really trying to debate you. I do appreciate your answer. I do sometimes challenge the statements made because I am interested in the discussion and I am looking for clarification of points. It is just the way my brain works.
I am not a Protestant Baptist. I never came out of the Catholic Church. I don’t think that I need to trace back the history of my Baptist heritage to say that I am not a Protestant. The Catholics would definitely disagree because I have strayed far their church at some point after the apostle Peter. I value so little the denominational system that I don’t feel as if I need to justify it on a historical timeline. I do value it for understanding where people are coming from and what they believe. The real trouble is that there are actually so many different types of churches within the accepted definitions of denominations that they hardly mean anything anymore.
I am glad to hear the rest of your statement. It clears up some assumptions that I made.
I do hope that source is of some value. I’m sorry if it is only repeated information. I have not read it but it looks like what you may be looking for.
 

Les Potter

New Member
I am not really trying to debate you. I do appreciate your answer. I do sometimes challenge the statements made because I am interested in the discussion and I am looking for clarification of points. It is just the way my brain works.
I am not a Protestant Baptist. I never came out of the Catholic Church. I don’t think that I need to trace back the history of my Baptist heritage to say that I am not a Protestant. The Catholics would definitely disagree because I have strayed far their church at some point after the apostle Peter. I value so little the denominational system that I don’t feel as if I need to justify it on a historical timeline. I do value it for understanding where people are coming from and what they believe. The real trouble is that there are actually so many different types of churches within the accepted definitions of denominations that they hardly mean anything anymore.
I am glad to hear the rest of your statement. It clears up some assumptions that I made.
I do hope that source is of some value. I’m sorry if it is only repeated information. I have not read it but it looks like what you may be looking for.
I appreciate your reply. To clear up my terminology of "Protestant Baptist" it is in regard to Protestant ecclesiology. It is really not the matter of coming out of catholicism. Most Protestant assemblies are far removed from their mother several times over. Each successive split from one denomination to another would allow any to say they did not come out of catholicism. However, there is one doctrine that all Protestants have that is a foundational difference from Biblical ecclesiology. That being the invisible, mystical, universal "church" of salvation. This is at the root of what determines Protestantism. After all, it is a doctrinal matter. Therefore, those who say they are Baptist but of Protestant ecclesiology are generally considered Protestant. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention embraced the Protestant ecclesiology in 1963. Since that time, they declare themselves the largest Protestant denomination in the world. As much as I don't like the terms "Baptist" and "Protestant" together, they are actually 100% correct. The SBS is Protestant. NOT by name, but by doctrine. Ultimately, that is the only way to identify what a religious assembly is. Not their name (many of those who were counted as early Baptist church were called by other names), but by doctrine. We identify the Waldenses, Albigenses and Donatists by their doctrine to be "Baptist" not by their name. The same way we identify Baptists who have embraced Protestant ecclesiology as Protestants. Hope this helps.
 

Ben1445

Active Member
I appreciate your reply. To clear up my terminology of "Protestant Baptist" it is in regard to Protestant ecclesiology. It is really not the matter of coming out of catholicism. Most Protestant assemblies are far removed from their mother several times over. Each successive split from one denomination to another would allow any to say they did not come out of catholicism. However, there is one doctrine that all Protestants have that is a foundational difference from Biblical ecclesiology. That being the invisible, mystical, universal "church" of salvation. This is at the root of what determines Protestantism. After all, it is a doctrinal matter. Therefore, those who say they are Baptist but of Protestant ecclesiology are generally considered Protestant. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention embraced the Protestant ecclesiology in 1963. Since that time, they declare themselves the largest Protestant denomination in the world. As much as I don't like the terms "Baptist" and "Protestant" together, they are actually 100% correct. The SBS is Protestant. NOT by name, but by doctrine. Ultimately, that is the only way to identify what a religious assembly is. Not their name (many of those who were counted as early Baptist church were called by other names), but by doctrine. We identify the Waldenses, Albigenses and Donatists by their doctrine to be "Baptist" not by their name. The same way we identify Baptists who have embraced Protestant ecclesiology as Protestants. Hope this helps.
I could agree with you on some of that. I wouldn’t say all of it only because I don’t know everything that may entail. I don’t like to jump all in on anything without knowing who are the ranchers and who are the rustlers, if I may use the analogy.
I do understand and agree with your point about identifying Baptists by their doctrine and not by their names.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
I didn't say anything about salvation. One foundational premise of Protestantism that makes Biblical ecclesiology hard for them to understand is that they make "church" and "salvation" synonymous. This is, in fact a main foundational matter. the Bible teaches salvation is by grace through faith, by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It is not of works. Nor is it by "church." Catholicism taught that salvation = "church" (the universal visible catholic version). Her daughters had to justify their departure from Rome, so they devised a universal, *invisible* "church" of salvation. Thus, they claim that all who are saved were mystically and invisibly baptized into this invisible "body." Thus, you *do* believe in baptismal salvation, only that it is invisible. Baptists reject baptism as having any part of salvation. We also believe there is one Lord, one faith and one baptism. Protestant Baptists have two baptisms. Their water baptism is a picture of a spirit baptism. I am not trying to debate you, but hoping you will just consider what I am saying. You have said you disagree. That is fine. But if you want to understand where we are coming from, consider this foundational matter. Protestant Baptists are so ingrained with the idea that church=salvation, though we always denied it. They use the word "church" for Christianity. They speak of the "rapture of the church." Whereas the Bible speaks of the catching away (rapture) is of the SAINTS. That means ALL who are saved, not just the church. Then when we speak of how there is a difference between true churches and the family of God, they see it through their lens and claim that we think we are the "only ones saved." They misunderstand because they won't see it from a Biblical premise.
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. - Hebrews 2:11-12 KJV

He didn't say, 'churches,' as of many, but 'church' as of one. The saints make up the church.
 

Ben1445

Active Member
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. - Hebrews 2:11-12 KJV

He didn't say, 'churches,' as of many, but 'church' as of one. The saints make up the church.
If there is a universal assembly, all the saints certainly aren't assembled yet. But when I preach at the church, all the saints don't hear me in every other church.
this is a quote of the OT and at its writing would be referring to the Hebrews assembled.
 
Top