• 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!

Spiritual Kinship

Jerome

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The context in which you encountered this phrase would be helpful.
Basically it is when the terminology of family is applied to a spiritual relationship.
Believers in scripture are often described this way: see I Tim. 5:1-2.
Extrabiblical use would be godfather, etc.; spiritual wives (Mormonism); and authoritarian cult leaders claiming to be spiritual fathers of their followers.
 
C

CarpentersApprentice

New Member
Jerome said:
The context in which you encountered this phrase would be helpful...
Click to expand...

Oops... I thought it was a familiar term to the folks on this board. I saw it in another thread here discussing Baptist history. From The Baptist Story by David Potter (2004).

"The origin of the Baptists is a controversial subject. Baptist historians have advanced three major views of Baptist roots: the Successionist Theory, the Spiritual Kinship Theory, and the English Separatist Theory. The Successionist Theory contends that an unbroken succession of churches have taught and practiced Baptist principles from the time of the New Testament. The Spiritual Kinship Theory contends that, although a visible succession is not provable, Baptist churches have always existed since the time of the apostles."

He doesn't go into it though. Is there anymore to the definition than this? What is he talking about? What are some examples?

CA
 
D

dispen4ever

New Member
We talked about this in another thread. Southern Baptists believe that what they teach and preach, how they interpret scripture, their doctrine, is most compatible with the New Testament. Some believe in an unbroken line of succession, others that those of the SBC-type have existed since NT times. They are very clear that they existed long before, and outside of, Roman Catholicism, never having submitted to its authority, and were not part of Luther's Reformation. How's that in about 75-80 words? :thumbs:
 
A

Allan

Active Member
Southern Baptists believe that what they teach and preach, how they interpret scripture, their doctrine, is most compatible with the New Testament. Some believe in an unbroken line of succession, others that those of the SBC-type have existed since NT times.
Click to expand...
Uh...Baptists in General believe your first statement, since we as baptists hold (in the main) the same basic doctrines. THe small side issues show where we disagree and show a branching off but the truck in the same from which the branches come out of. This "trunk" so to speak is what is known as the Baptist distinctives (or doctrines).

As to the OP Below is a link that allows you to look a many scholarly and credible works as well as books free to read (or pring out) on line.

Though I am not a Calvinist, it is a Calvinistic weblink. But in this field of study they present all the different fields study in a way to better allow the person researching to draw their own conclusions. Here is the link:

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

dispen4ever

New Member
Some SBCers are Calvinists (unfortunately). Not all are. As to who those who believe in Baptist succession:

"All that Baptists mean by 'church succession' is: there has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth." (W. A. Jarrel)

"The New Testament churches were independent, self-governing, democratic bodies like the Baptist churches of today. We originated, not at the Reformation, nor in the Dark Ages, nor in any century after the Apostles, but our marching orders are the Great Commission, and the first Baptist church was the church at Jerusalem. Our principles are as old as Christianity, and we acknowledge no founder but Christ." (George McDaniel)

"From the time the Lord Jesus Christ established his New Testament church during His earthly ministry, until the present time, there have always existed believers and churches apart from both Romanism and Protestantism that have held to the essentials of New Testament truth." (W. R. Downing)

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation, we were reformers before Luther or 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." (C. H. Spurgeon)

"The authenticity of a Baptist church depends, not on its ability to trace an unbroken line of connection to the apostles, but rather in its ability to demonstrate that it presently possesses the doctrines, principles, and practices which the apostles had and which are evident on the pages of the New Testament." (Kenneth Good)

"When we speak of Baptist succession, we mean that since the time of Christ's earthly ministry there have appeared in every generation churches like the one He founded while He was here on earth ... and that such churches will continue to exist until the Rapture." (David Gonnella)

"I mean by the term Baptist church perpetuity that the church as an institution has existed in every age since the personal ministry of Christ. There has never been a day since the organization of the Jerusalem church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament order existing on earth." (Milburn Cockrell)

"Churches like the first church have continued to exist from that day to the present time. Christ promised that they would not cease to exist. Those today who claim that they and the churches of the Reformation have restored New Testament Christianity overlook the fact that the church Jesus built would not have to be restored." (M. L. Moser Sr.)

[B]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist[/B]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
C

CarpentersApprentice

New Member
How do I answer the critique that the spiritual kinship theory of Baptist origins is only wishful thinking?

At the reformed reader site many of the authors noted the Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Albigensians, Waldensians and other non-Catholic groups as precursors of the Baptists.

One of the problem I see with this is that these groups all held decidely non-Baptist ideas. The Montanists were like modern day Pentacostals and Adventists. The Novatians and Donatists were Catholic in their understanding of the sacraments. The Paulicians and the Albegensians were dualists, more akin to the New Age today than the Baptists.

How do I explain how these pre-baptist Baptists could believe such non-Baptist ideas?

CA
 
A

Allan

Active Member
They did have many decidedly unbaptist ideas amongst them but they are not considered 'baptist' because they have always held 'our' same ideas but many of the same dotrinal principles; one being baptism by immersion and others like the deity of Christ, ect...

Thus the spiritual kinship is better understood rather than direct lineage of doctrine. Another thing is that none of those groups where outside the influence of another. What I mean by this is: you can find where a person at one time came from another group but left (for differing reasons) and either joined up with another group (if the person usually became a pastor we see a change in theology) or they just began a new group that was similar to the old but varied in doctrine.

The point is not that they were ALL 100% biblical but that they were never apart of the Catholic Church and their were also biblical enough (from somewhat to very) to never become a cult or outright false religion. Thus we can trace our heritage 'through' them back to the early church.

The early church was not 100% in agreement with all things either. But they had the advantage of the apostles to help maintain proper understanding. Later there was a scattering of believers due to persecution/slaughter. And then it move to the Catholic Church slaughtering the believers but the truth still remained and continued in some form or fashion OUTSIDE the Catholic Church. The Church or God, Assemblies of God, And non-demoninaltionals have their roots in Baptists history yet they from the outside don't seem to hold Baptistic views per-say but there are some doctrinal things that are consistant and viable that not only historically show they have a direct link from baptists but their views on certain main doctrine that show the same.

That is all spiritual 'kinship' is about. We can show relation by certain views (more than one) concerning doctrines and practice.
 
D

dispen4ever

New Member
Yeah, we aren't saying that there was a church named Baptist on the corner in Jerusalem, just that the doctrine, the interpretation, that Baptists believe and follow today is the same as that produced and believed at the time of Christ. SBCers (not all, but many) will say that NT doctrine was preserved and sustained over the centuries, culminating in the SBC congregations of today, utterly outside of any other stream of Christian inspiration - what they're preaching and teaching matches that of the early church. They are saying that other doctrines, those maintained by the Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, etc., are not accurately presenting the entire Gospel, as presented by the New Testament writers - there are errors in their interpretations. Lots of folks want to throw bricks at the SBC for that, but that's what they believe, and they're going to stick with it. Post-modern thought, tolerance, I'm OK, You're OK, hate speech, and other thoughts bursting on the scene are disruptive of the idea, that's for sure. :wavey:
 
C

CarpentersApprentice

New Member
Allan said:
... none of those groups where outside the influence of another. What I mean by this is: you can find where a person at one time came from another group but left (for differing reasons) and either joined up with another group (if the person usually became a pastor we see a change in theology) or they just began a new group that was similar to the old but varied in doctrine...
Click to expand...

What reference do you have that will best demonstrate this?

(What I read on the reformed reader site does not seem to support this position.)

CA
 
A

Allan

Active Member
I know you have not read through or even carefully skimmed the books and reviews of that post. If you had you would see many of your answers right there. Some are notation of record and some delve deeper and and pull clearer historical data. Here is an excert from one that skims the issue anabaptists backward:
Hosius further stated:

"The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect of which kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been although some of them lately, as they testify in their apology, declare that they will no longer re-baptize, as was their former custom; nevertheless, it is certain that many of them retain their custom, and have united with the Anabaptists." (Hosius, Works of the Heresatics of our Times, Bk. I. 431. Ed. 1584 as quoted by John T. Christian).

In a court of law Hosius would be considered a hostile witness for the Baptists. The testimony of a hostile witness is the most convincing kind.

Zwingli, the first Protestant Reformed theologian said:

"The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for three hundred years has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appears futile for a time." (Christian)

Mosheim, the Lutheran historian states:

". . . I believe the Mennonites are not altogether in the wrong, when they boast of a descent from these Waldenses, Petrobrusians, and others, who are usually styled witnesses for the truth before Luther. Prior to the age of Luther, there lay concealed in almost every country of Europe but especially in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland and Germany, very many persons, in whose minds were deeply rooted that principle which the Waldenses, Wyclifites, and the Husites maintained, some more covertly and others more openly; namely, that the kingdom which Christ set up on the earth, or the visible church, is an assembly of holy persons; and ought therefore to he entirely free from not only ungodly persons and sinners, but from all institutions of human device against ungodliness. This principle lay at the foundation which was the source of all that was new and singular in the religion of the Mennonites; and the greatest part of their singular opinions, as is well attested, were approved some centuries before the time of Luther, by those who had such views of the Church of Christ (Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, III. 200).


The Reformed Church of the Netherlands:
The claim of the Dutch Baptists to apostolic origin was made the object of a special investigation in the year 1819, by Dr. Ypeij, Professor of Theology in Gronigen, and the Rev. J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of the Netherlands, both of whom were learned members of the Reformed Church. Many pages might be filled with the reports that they made to the King. In the opinion of these writers:

The Mennonites are descended from the tolerably pure evangelical Waldenses, who were driven by persecution into various countries; and who during the latter part of the twelfth century fled into Flanders; and into the provinces of Holland and Zealand, where they lived simple and exemplary lives, in the villages as farmers, in the towns by trades, free from the charge of any gross immoralities, and professing the most pure and simple principles, which they exemplified in a holy conversation. They were, therefore, in existence long before the Reformed Church of the Netherlands.

We have now seen that the Baptists who were formerly called Anabaptist, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses. and who have long in the history of the church received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian society which has stood since the days of the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external and internal economy of the Baptist denomination tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary, and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics, that their denomination is the most ancient." (Ypeij en Dermout, Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche Hervornude Kerk. Breda, 1819)

This testimony from the highest authority of the Dutch Reformed Church, through a Commission appointed by the King of the Netherlands, is a rare instance of liberality and justice to another denomination. It concedes all that Baptists have ever claimed in regard to the continuity of their history. On this account State patronage was tendered to the Baptists, which they politely, but firmly declined. (Christian)
In those places where the Waldenses flourished there the Baptists set deep root. This statement holds good from country to country, and from city to city. Innumerable examples might be given.*

There has been a succession of churches from the time of Christ to this day who have believed the doctrines which He commanded. Just as each believer should reproduce himself through soul winning, so also should the churches reproduce themselves.

There are two essentials concerning church succession: 1) the New Testament Doctrine held, and 2) authority from a like church.

Authority to establish a new church at times may have been from just a hand full of members or in extreme cases perhaps only from one member. However, when possible a new church should have the blessing of a mother church.
Click to expand...
From:
John Henry
The Beliefs, Antiquities & Succession of Baptists

There are other more decisive historical accounts but I don't have the time to hunt for them at present. Take your time and read them (the ones to which you are looking for specific info that is) They are not at the beginning but just after and downward.
 
C

CarpentersApprentice

New Member
Allan said:
I know you have not read through or even carefully skimmed the books and reviews of that post. If you had you would see many of your answers right there. Some are notation of record and some delve deeper and and pull clearer historical data. Here is an excert from one that skims the issue anabaptists backward:

From:
John Henry
The Beliefs, Antiquities & Succession of Baptists

There are other more decisive historical accounts but I don't have the time to hunt for them at present. Take your time and read them (the ones to which you are looking for specific info that is) They are not at the beginning but just after and downward.
Click to expand...

Thanks! CA
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top