W.H. Whitsitt controversy

[rlvaughn]

I recently purchased and read W. H. Whitsitt: The Man and the Controversy by James Slatton. If you like Baptist history, you will enjoy this book. Click on the link below to read more:
http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2010/06/man-and-controversy.html

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Am I correct in assuming he's the palooka who popularized the English Separatist Theory?

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, Brother Robertsson, he is the one.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yes, Brother Robertsson, he is the one.

Talk about poisoning the well, GRRR :BangHead:

 

[gb93433]

I recently purchased and read W. H. Whitsitt: The Man and the Controversy by James Slatton. If you like Baptist history, you will enjoy this book. Click on the link below to read more:
http://baptistsearch.blogspot.com/2010/06/man-and-controversy.html

Whitsitt is the person who taught that Baptists go back the same number of centuries that most every Baptist historian believes and teaches today. The problem is that the conservatives of the day believed in the Trail of Blood and fired him from Southern Seminary.

 

[Tom Bryant]

From the review:

He questioned the exclusivity of Christianity, possibly held falling from grace, did not require reimmersion even from the Campbellites (called it stupidity and sectarian arrogance) and apparently agreed with Crawford Toy's progressive views on inspiration.

So it was the Landmarkers who drove him out? He didn't believe Jesus was the only way to heaven. He didn't believed in the perseverance of the saints. He didn't believe in Biblical baptism and changed his view on inspiration. Sounds like he quit being a baptist. Or maybe he just belonged in the CBF and was ahead of his time.

 

[Bob Alkire]

So it was the Landmarkers who drove him out? He didn't believe Jesus was the only way to heaven. He didn't believed in the perseverance of the saints. He didn't believe in Biblical baptism and changed his view on inspiration. Sounds like he quit being a baptist. Or maybe he just belonged in the CBF and was ahead of his time.

Tom, you seem to read well, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[gb93433]

So it was the Landmarkers who drove him out? He didn't believe Jesus was the only way to heaven. He didn't believed in the perseverance of the saints. He didn't believe in Biblical baptism and changed his view on inspiration. Sounds like he quit being a baptist. Or maybe he just belonged in the CBF and was ahead of his time.

Some have said that I am a liberal, a conservative, a moderate, and some said that I made the fundamentalists look liberal. I am the same person. So which am I? That same sort of things happensdsa among liars in denominations and conventions.

My experience with all of those groups is that there are people in them who do not study their Bible very well and are afraid to take a stance for what they already know.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Some have said that I am a liberal, a conservative, a moderate, and some said that I made the fundamentalists look liberal. I am the same person. So which am I? That same sort of things happensdsa among liars in denominations and conventions.

My experience with all of those groups is that there are people in them who do not study their Bible very well and are afraid to take a stance for what they already know.

Never said anything about your beliefs.

Whitsitt was a liberal. He had left what Baptists believe. His departure had nothing to do with the trail of blood or, for that matter, people who don't study their Bible. It had to do with people who don't believe the Bible.

 

[gb93433]

Never said anything about your beliefs.

Whitsitt was a liberal. He had left what Baptists believe. His departure had nothing to do with the trail of blood or, for that matter, people who don't study their Bible. It had to do with people who don't believe the Bible.

I know you didn't say anything about my beliefs. My point is that what someone writes is too often opinion. I did not see any credible documentation to support what you wrote.

B.H. Caroll supported the Trail of Blood and he was a divorced pastor. He started SWBTS and was its first president. Would you consider him a liberal?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

SNIP
So it was the Landmarkers who drove him out? He didn't believe Jesus was the only way to heaven. He didn't believed in the perseverance of the saints (1). He didn't believe in Biblical baptism (2) and changed his view on inspiration. Sounds like he quit being a baptist. Or maybe he just belonged in the CBF and was ahead of his time.

Bolding is mine. Not being a Southern Baptist in any shape or form, if he held to the bold positions, he's a liberal\modernist. Position (1) would make him a General\Free Will Baptist [the SBC comes out of the Particular side of the family]. Position (2) would mean he stopped being a Baptist altogether. Mind you, these are only my opinions based on what has been written on this thread.

 

[gb93433]

Bolding is mine. Not being a Southern Baptist in any shape or form, if he held to the bold positions, he's a liberal\modernist. Position (1) would make him a General\Free Will Baptist [the SBC comes out of the Particular side of the family]. Position (2) would mean he stopped being a Baptist altogether. Mind you, these are only my opinions based on what has been written on this thread.

The SBC ranges all the way from those who claim to believe the Bible but so not by the way they live to those who take their faith seriously. There are those who are calvinists and those who are arminians. There are those who still practice segregation while others do not.

 

[rsr]

Please keep the conversation civil and on topic.

I think it is correct to say that the Landmark Baptists eventually forced Whitsitt out.

His arguments with Baptist orthodoxy were, as the book shows, secret, confided almost entirely to his diary; his colleagues — and adversaries, who would gladly have used them as ammunition against him had they known of them — didn't know of them. It was his insistence that Baptists recovered immersion in the mid 17th century that landed him in hot water, as can be shown by a reading of the various associational and state resolutions calling for his ouster.

However, the controversy over his findings are of a piece with the personality Bro. Robert has outlined in his blog. A.H. Newman, for example, generally agreed with Whitsitt's thesis, but criticized Whitsitt for espousing the thesis (anonymously) in a journal often hostile to Baptists.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I found this in some of my notes that I have on the subject. He had many teachings that weren't of the Baptist of the day or today.

Graves County Baptist Association Minutes, 1896, Graves County Association (Ky) went on record concerning this disturbing matter by means of a resolution, the author of who is not named:...
"WHEREAS, Dr. Whitsitt's position as a professor of our Theological Seminary gives great weight to his heresies, and injury to the Baptist church the Scriptures say: 'Mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye ha­ve learned, and avoid them.' Romans 16:17;
"Now, THEREFORE, we deem said Dr. W.H. Whitsitt to be totally unfit to occupy the high and exalted position he now occupies as president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary or even to be a member of the Baptist church with his heresies; ...

 

[gb93433]

His arguments with Baptist orthodoxy were, as the book shows, secret, confided almost entirely to his diary; his colleagues — and adversaries, who would gladly have used them as ammunition against him had they known of them — didn't know of them. It was his insistence that Baptists recovered immersion in the mid 17th century that landed him in hot water, as can be shown by a reading of the various associational and state resolutions calling for his ouster.

Are you saying that the Baptists in power at the time did not believe in baptism by immersion was necessary?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

The classic (General and Particular) Baptist position is baptism is an ordinance. It is the first step of obedience after salvation. However, baptism is not a means or part of salvation. Or as my home church's discipleship lesson on Baptism says, "Water does not wash away sin. The Blood of Christ washes away sin."

 

[rsr]

Are you saying that the Baptists in power at the time did not believe in baptism by immersion was necessary?

Nope. The disagreement was not over whether it was necessary but whether early Baptists considered it necessary. To admit that immersion had to be reintroduced knocks certain brands of successionism into cocked hats.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Me, I'm sitting up in the bleachers watching this thread as a bit of intramural SBC politics.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Fact is that this boat has sailed in SBC "politics". It's old history about a guy who left the faith (salvation thru Christ alone and inerrancy of Scripture) and how he was asked to leave the SBTS.

It's a battle the SBC has had to deal with over and over. In the mid 20th century, we failed to deal with it and many great southern baptist trained theologians left and, in some ways, formed the nucleus of the IFB movement.

So we had to deal with it in the 1980's and 90's. The SBC wll probably deal with it again in the future.

Those who are sympathetic to Whitsitt's doctrine will make it seem like it was over trail of blood stuff. It wasn't. It was over doctrine.

 

[rsr]

I found this in some of my notes that I have on the subject. He had many teachings that weren't of the Baptist of the day or today.

Graves County Baptist Association Minutes, 1896, Graves County Association

The resolution names two "heresies": maintaining that Baptists recovered immersion in the 17th century and that he "advises that a Baptist woman marrying a Pedobaptist husband should unite with his church, there*by making no difference between Pedo*baptist churches and the Baptist ch*urch set up by the Lord Jesus Christ in person."

Is this not a weak reed on which to hang a charge of "many heresies?"