I swearm I thought the came from Mississippi -
The Evangelical Theological Society’s annual meeting — held in New Orleans, birthplace of the Conservative Resurgence of the Southern Baptist Convention — included an examination of the question: Where did Baptists come from and what are their distinctive beliefs?
…..
– Various “successionist theories,” which assert that Baptist churches have continued in an unbroken line since the time of the apostles.
– The “Anabaptist kinship” theory, which asserts that Baptists rose from Dutch and Swiss Anabaptists in the 16th century, groups that were born in reaction against such prominent reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin.
– The “English Separatist Descent” theory, which argues that Baptists rose from English dissent (Puritanism) in the early 17th century. This theory places the Baptist birth year at around 1609, prompting numerous conferences and papers this year marking the 400th anniversary of Baptist beginnings.
December 15th, 2009 11:56 am
This issue seems to come up regularly in Baptist Circles and of course they left one group out.
There are 3 groups of “Baptists” that make up Modern Baptists. The first group which is making a comeback surge after having mostly disappeared are the Anabaptists. The brothers Caner claim anabaptist origins, but they also claim a lot of other things and are historically and philosophically wrong about those also. Another example is their confusion of Hyper Calvinism (a heresy that denies the need of evangelism) with Calvinism. Because hyper calvinism has calvinism in it and anabaptist has baptist in it they assume [word choice intentional] a primary relationship and descent. If you want to see real Anabaptists today do not look at the Caners look instead to the Mennonites.
The Second group Descends from John Smyth and are generally referred to as General Baptists because of their Belief in the General Atonement of Christ on the cross. This breed of Baptists had mostly disappeared in America until the time of Finney when they made a dramatic comeback and now represent the largest portion of Baptists today.
The Third group descended from English Separatists and are the writers of the 1st and 2nd London Baptist Confessions the Founders of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary etc and were known as the Particular Baptists today sometimes called “Reformed Baptists”. The term “particular” comes from the belief of Particular Atonement of Christ on the Cross.
What unites these 3 disparate groups? Baptism by immersion of people who have given a profession of faith and congregationalism. Until the 1920’s or so the General Baptists were primarily “New Covenant” in theology where the Particular Baptists were and are Covenantal in theology, today most General Baptists are Dispensational in theology.
There is a group of “Landmarkers” (the first group mentioned) which artificially try to make a connection for Baptistry through the ages but they include all kinds of heretics to make their case for the “true” church baptizing only “believers” they are a relatively modern group rising out of Fundamentalism..Landmarkers follow the trial of blood and have a motto of John, Jesus and Jerusalem to the point where they believe the church was effectively founded by John the Baptist.
December 15th, 2009 12:08 pm
Growing up within, within and around, the Southern Baptist Tradition, I was able to meet and deal with the Landmark issue. Of all the Baptists, the Landmarkers were the must unbaptist of the crowd.
December 15th, 2009 12:09 pm
Further, their is a group around here, the United Baptists, which is preterist.
December 15th, 2009 12:15 pm
Oh there are lots and lots of little splinter groups out there, but they all come from one of those 3 groups originally. Don’t forget the snake handlers. (Shudder)
December 15th, 2009 1:29 pm
Most Southern Baptists can barely get past their local church’s founding, much less Sandy Creek, Puritans, Tyndale, Wycliffe, and three guys talking among themselves in the back of the upper room.
December 15th, 2009 3:08 pm
I identify with the Anabaptist tradition, and I am beginning to see the Black Baptist tradition as part of that tradition as well, reading the biographies of preachers like, Tom Skinner, Congressman Adam Powell Jr and MLK Jr.
December 15th, 2009 5:38 pm
Most of the African churches came out of the Particular Baptist line. Have you actually read the anabaptist history? If you have not you might want to before you claim descent from them. Even Zwingli had issues with Anabaptists and he was the most Radical of the early reformed leaders. Take a look at Timothy George’s reformation history books, they are likely the most balanced you will find.
I do not know of the other preachers you mentioned, as my area of church history specializes in the rise of fundamentalism in North America from the Niagara Conferences to the Early Years of DTS (Chafer/ Walvoord) you will see I do have a great deal of respect for Dr MLK Jr, but not as a pastor/preacher/theologian. As politician, inspirer of men and women and civil rights person he is near the top if not the top ( I would have to weigh in some others like Mother Teresa Gandhi etc but you get the ballpark) as a theologian though he was seriously lacking.
The number of so called “Black Calvinists” are rising, it is the term they use so I use it though I do not see where race comes into religion except area of ministry. Example Tony Evans’ church is in Oak Lawn TX so I expect him to minister to people in Oak Lawn first and other area second, A missionary group I know in Juarez ministers to people in Juarez first etc.
If you want there is a, again their term, Black Reformed Forum they surely have a brother interested in history if you want to see the other side of Black Baptist History,
Funny story: When I got a replacement birth certificate from Richmond, Virginia they made me declare a race. Look at my picture… I am a tall, ok you can’t see I am 6′6 in the picture, fat white guy, the only way I could get paler would be to paint myself white. Of course I really am a mutt having descended from African, European and Native American stock but you can tell which genes dominated in my gene pool. Anyway let me know if you want that forum address.
December 16th, 2009 12:58 am
Interesting take on history, R.K.
But, I think that the enslaved Africans who experienced conversions during the Second Great Awakening ran into the Baptists from the North first, descendants of John Smyth possibly. Doctrinally speaking, and in terms of practicing nonviolence, the Black baptist tradition has always been closer to the anabaptists.
Well, Tom Skinner was an evangelical in the 1960s and 1970s, he was a baptist, and he preached nonviolence. Congressman/Reverend Powell was more theologically conservative than liberal from actually reading his sermons. He also talked alot about nonviolence and peace. There are alot more figures I could name, but it would not hurt you to start there if you want to read up on them.
Also, on the whole “dr. king is a bad theologian” argument. Only tell me that if you have actually read his work, rather than hearing second hand how he denied this or that doctrine. According to some commenters on Polycarp’s blog, we are supposed to read primary texts in original languages, right? I would say Dr. King was far more orthodox of a Christian than any of his so-called doctrinally correct opponents who supported segregation. It is not doctrine that saves, only Christ.
December 16th, 2009 9:20 am
“Doctrinally speaking, and in terms of practicing nonviolence, the Black baptist tradition has always been closer to the anabaptists.” Umm no the general Baptists had almost completely disappeared before the so called 2nd great awakening. The only guy worth anything in the 2nd great awakening Asahel Nettleton.
2nd Yes I have read the theology of Dr. MLK Jr., I even used the primary sources available at the King centre here in Atlanta. Having done so, I stand by my statement entirely.
Lastly incorrect doctrine is a hindrance at best and heresy at worst. Are you then saying that preaching a false gospel is good? Right doctrine shows a right relationship with the creator of that doctrine, Christ.
December 17th, 2009 3:52 am
Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Also, your last statement, I will have to disagree with. Right doctrine does not show a right relationship with Christ. We can believe this or that doctrine, but if we do not have the love of God and the love of others in our hearts, we cannot call ourselves followers of Christ.
There are doctrinal boundaries where we can call ourselves Christians and identify others as not, but I do not think that adhering to those doctrines means a wrong relationship with our Savior. And no, I am not saying false gospels are good. What I am saying is that the gospels define what a relationship with God looks like, and that is the royal law according to Paul, loving God and loving others as ourselves. Everything else is a matter of discernment. Many of Dr. King’s opponents claimed to have the right doctrine, and defended segregation.Theirs was the false gospel, and not his. A false gospel cause others to fall into sin. I make a difference between sin and theological error because all theology is, well, contextual. We have to understand King in his context, the early 20th century, educated in liberal institutions wishing to free themselves and differentiate themselves from the Fundamentalist movement in the 1920s. I do not take everything that King said to be universal; his politics are profoundly, well American and patriotic, and his religion, from liberal protestantism. Even though I have a beef with liberal protestantism, I can still appreciate his practice of the doctrine of nonviolence–the recognition that Christ is our peace and his cross reconciles humanity to God and to other human beings.
December 17th, 2009 5:43 am
Segregation is profoundly wrong for any Christian to practice, let me say that outright.
Non-violence only has certain uses. God has granted the state certain privileges including deciding life and death, we see that in the theology of the Bible. I say theology because you seem to have mistaken theology and dogma. (Theology, should always be drawn directly from scripture, dogma is extra biblical.) When you think that we have it bad now or ever had it bad in America remember back to who was the Caesar when Paul admonished us to submit to the authority that Christ has placed over us.