Posted on 07/19/2007 9:38:57 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
RICHMOND, Va. (ABP) – The Vatican's recent reaffirmation that the “true church” lies in an unbroken line of succession all the way back to Christ and his apostles might resonate in an unlikely place – among conservative Baptists who trace the roots of their denomination back to Jesus and sometimes beyond, to John the Baptist.
Baptist successionism – a theory which emerged on the 19th-century American frontier -- claims to find a line of historical continuity in doctrine and practice from Jesus himself to today’s Baptist churches. True Christian churches, so goes the theory, are marked by distinctive baptistic characteristics, such as autonomous government, closed (members-only) communion and baptism by immersion. Such churches have existed since New Testament times and can be traced through history in dissenting groups such as the Donatists, Albigenses, Cathari, Waldenses and Anabaptists.
Though generally discredited by church historians, the theory still holds sway among some fundamentalist and conservative Baptists, including some affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention.
“Baptist Landmarkists – who were fighting Catholics, Cambellites and other denominations in the mid-19th century -- concocted the theory of a succession of churches from the New Testament that were Baptist in everything but name and had kept New Testament Christianity alive amid the corruption of Rome and the false ‘societies’ like the Methodists, Presbyterians and others,” said Bill Leonard, dean and professor of church history at Wake Forest University Divinity School in Winston-Salem, N.C.
“Since all other churches were false, so was their baptism. So all who joined the Baptist fold had to be rebaptized, even those who had received ‘alien immersion’ in false churches,” said Leonard.
Successionism was popularized in a 1931 pamphlet, “The Trail of Blood,” written by Texas Baptist leader J. M. Carroll and occasionally reprinted by fundamentalist churches today. Copies are widely available on the Internet.
The 56-page booklet alleges that the Roman Catholic Church persecuted true baptistic churches throughout history and drove them underground. It includes a detailed chart “illustrating the history of the Baptist churches from the time of their founder, the Lord Jesus Christ, until the 20th century.” The chart identifies Baptist churches with a number of dissenting groups, tracing them with a series of red dots representing the blood of those who have suffered for the true faith, thus the “trail of blood.”
Some Baptist successionists have found their denominational beginnings earlier than Christ, in the Jordan River baptisms of John the Baptist and, in the case of one zealous advocate of the theory, even back to Adam.
Commitment to successionism among many 19th-century Southern Baptists was fervent enough to topple a seminary president who questioned its veracity. William Whitsitt, a church historian who became president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in 1895, wrote that it wasn’t until the 17th century that Baptists began baptizing by immersion and that Roger Williams’ church in Rhode Island did not initially immerse.
“For many Southern Baptists, Whitsitt’s findings were tantamount to heresy,” said Fred Anderson, executive director of the Virginia Baptist Historical Society. “He was hounded out of office.”
After resigning in 1899, Whitsitt moved to Virginia, where successionism had made little headway among Baptist churches. He taught philosophy at the University of Richmond – then closely aligned with Baptists – from 1901 until his death in 1911. Whitsitt's reputation was later recovered, and a Baptist historical society now bears his name.
Anderson said successionism is “fanciful history without factual basis.”
“With succession theories comes other baggage – infant baptism versus believer’s baptism with impassioned defenses against ‘pedobaptists,’ ‘alien immersion’ or baptism performed by someone other than a Baptist, ‘closed communion’ or the limiting of participation in the Lord’s Supper only to those who have been immersed or who belong to a particular Baptist church, and an anti-ecumenicalism which lies just under the surface of many Baptists,” he said
And, he said, it has led some conservative Baptists to reject the label “Protestant,” since successionists can’t accept the view that Baptists emerged out of the Protestant Reformation in the 17th century.
Most Baptists today would reject a successionism of churches, said Anderson, opting instead for a “spiritual succession.”
“W.W. Barnes, the Southern Baptist historian, described a true historical succession as consisting of a succession of genuine followers of Christ, a succession of Christian experience,” he said.
Leonard of Wake Forest suggested the idea of successionism will not pass away anytime soon.
As the Roman Catholic Church loses influence in Western Europe and North America, “it’s not surprising that they assert their hegemony as the only real church,” said Leonard. “But Baptists have their own forms of successionism, some based on local-church purity, others on theological purity, others on dogmatic assertion. So it goes.”
1) Baptist Successionism was NOT believed in by the earliest Baptists. They admitted their sect was new.
2) Other Protestants admit that Baptist Successionism is untrue.
3) Baptist Successionism is completely disproven by James McGoldrick in his book called BAPTIST SUCCESSIONISM.
On the other hand,
1) The Catholic Church ALWAYS asserted and had much evidence of it ancient roots and intimate connection with the Apostles.
2) Catholics have always admitted that the Catholic Church is the true church. Only non-Catholics deny it.
3) No one can disprove the Catholic claims.
The difference between the two being that the Catholic Church actually has a historical record that goes back to the apostles and the successionist theory slaps together various groups from various times of history, many without any apparent connection. The article mentions the successionists claim of the Donatists —and I think they are misunderstanding the nature of that group— but just to play along: what group can they associate with before the Donatists came on the scene? I mean, some group in between John and the Donatists? And I don’t mean some group that had similiarities to Baptists, but with whom there is a definite historical link.
I’m not a Catholic, so I have no axe to grind here, but I just don’t care much for baloney.
This is where I stopped reading (yes, I'll go back and finish after I type this comment). Even a little research into some of these groups, especially the Albigenses and the Cathari, should make the Baptists (and any Christian for that matter) not want to identify with them.
You would think! I always tell Baptists Successionists (after they tell me that the Cathari are their ancestors) that I fully agree there might be a relationship between those medieval supporters of sodomy and ritual murder (the Cathari) and modern day Baptists. That usually stops them in their tracks. Then we can have a more rational conversation.
Maybe this line should have been placed closer to the beginning of the article.
This discussion is all in the flesh, as Elohimb'shem Yah'shua
has "called out" (Ekklesia) each of us from prior
to the foundations of the universe.We are "called out" for a personal relationship
with His Son Yah'shua.When we call on His Name,
Yah'shua (which means YHvH is become our salvation )
for our salvation.This is spelled out in detail in Ephesians 1:3 - 23
I’ve never figured out why they want to claim a connection to people who practiced every sort of depravity, either, but that seems to be a proud claim of Protestants (that the Cathars were the secret church and the ancestors of Protestantism, etc.). I actually didn’t realize this until a former Protestant (now Catholic) friend told me about her Sunday school education and how Protestants traced their “lineage” to the Cathari, the Albigensians, and just about any hideous heresy known to God and man.
I think this is supported by history.
Timely article.
I'd agree with that. Until I had read this article, I had thought the "trail of blood/Baptist successionism" claim was based on doctrine (Christology, Soteriology) and not polity (autonomous government, closed/members-only communion, credo-baptism by immersion). Generally speaking, Baptist preachers in 19th-century America eschewed the formal doctrinal training other clergy received. One joke during that time defined a Methodist as "a Baptist who has learned to read and write." It wouldn't surprise me if "Trail of Blood" author J. M. Carroll had no idea (or cared) what these groups actually believed. Baptists historically are anti-creedal in their beliefs, as the creeds themselves were created by "established religions" and therefore suspect of containing error.
You can find the entire tract "The Trail of Blood" online. Note that the Reformers - Luther, Calvin, et al - fare little better than the Catholics do in it's brief survey of church history:
During all these hard struggles for Reformation, continuous and valuable aid was given to the reformers, by many Ana-Baptists, or whatever other name they bore. Hoping for some relief from their own bitter lot, they came out of their hiding places and fought bravely with the reformers, but they were doomed to fearful disappointment. They were from now on to have two additional persecuting enemies. Both the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches brought out of their Catholic Mother many of her evils, among them her idea of a State Church. They both soon became Established Churches. Both were soon in the persecuting business, falling little, if any, short of their Catholic Mother.In it's conclusion/afterword, author J. M. Carroll lists what he considers the distinctives that mark a "true church". Note that specific beliefs re Christology, soteriology, etc aren't among them:
FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
6. Its members. Believers only, they saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all New Testament laws.
8. The various churches -- separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to God--but cooperative in work.
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
10. Absolute Religious liberty for all.
Yes, reading the rest of the article, I see that too. Those ten marks you list are a lot more reasonable too. I’ll have to check that link, but can’t do it right now. Thanks for passing it along.
From the article:
...it has led some conservative Baptists to reject the label “Protestant,” since successionists can’t accept the view that Baptists emerged out of the Protestant Reformation in the 17th century.Labeling all who dispute the Primacy of the Pope - whether Reformers, anabaptists, or just wolves and heretics - as "Protestant", and then claiming that all believe in the same other things, seems to be a common practice of Catholic Apologists. Here's a little history lesson that might help, or do you believe that a rejection of papal primacy is all that defines being "Protestant"?
OK, then, would you please define “Protestant” for me?
My friend said she was a Protestant and this was taught in her Sunday school (first her family went to a Methodist church and then to a Dutch Reformed church and eventually to the Episcopal Church). They all considered themselves Protestants, and the first two were very big on the glories of the Albigensians and others, whom they considered “crypto-Protestants.”
Can you define Protestantism for me?
I don't believe in doing other peoples' homework for them. I gave you a pair of links in my last post - try clicking on them. But if you insist on using Cliff Notes, here's a post that sums it up nicely.
Indeed, that's a ridiculous practice. Some Catholic Apologists are notorious for doing that.
Most of my classmates in college were from different Protestant denominations, and it became apparent very quickly that describing "Protestants" using any generalization isn't fair or accurate. Before that point, I didn't realize how many disputes there are between Protestant denominations. Those four groups that you list on the other thread are much less confusing and far more accurate.
Interesting fundamental doctrines. Let’s see how the Baptist Church does:
1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
- the Baptist umbrella was founded by John Smyth in Amsterdam in 1605.
- 0 / 0
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
- Baptists symbolically celebrate the Lord’s Supper only; they do Baptism.
- 1/2 / 1/2
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons;
- Doesn’t it list three here? Going out to various Baptist sites, they list ministers, general secretaries and officers of all kinds.
- 0 / 1/2
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
- Huh? Why would a church government be a democracy? Right is right and wrong is wrong. It has nothing to do with democracy. How could they be democratic anyway? Does every seat in the pew get a vote? Don’t see how that could be done.
- 0 / 1/2
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
- Nothing of the Old Testament is valid? Therefore, there should be no mention of the OT in any law or doctrine in a Baptist website. Fail.
- 0 / 1/2
6. Its members. Believers only, they saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of
the Holy Spirit.
- I’d go with this.
- 1 / 1-1/2
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then
obedience and loyalty to all New Testament laws.
- Okay.
- 1 / 2-1/2
8. The various churches — separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in
their responsibilities to God—but cooperative in work.
- Okay, I’d go for the separation of church and church
- 1 / 3-1/2
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
- Not with a lot of Baptists (as long as they form the State)
- 1/2 / 4
10. Absolute Religious liberty for all.
- nope
- 0 / 4
I’d give the Baptists a rough 4 out of 10. But in looking at this list, I wonder how many of these really make a TRUE Church, rather than looking at the founder. Smyth versus Jesus Christ. I’d have to go with Jesus.
Every believer thinks his faith is the true.
You wrote:
“Lutherans have always admited that the Lutheran Church is the true church. Only non-Lutherans have denied it.”
Actually, most Lutherans believe they are part of the true church which is invisible. They would say it is about the individual’s faith in Christ and NOT really about the Lutheran church per se.
As a Lutheran minister said a few days ago:
“No one has the lock on the truth just because of a title or name,” said the Rev. David Eberhard, pastor of Historic Trinity Lutheran Church in Detroit. “I think that it’s a step backward for the Roman Catholic Church. The term Catholic is not the sole property, ownership and title of the Roman Catholic Church. It is a universal church that believes in Jesus Christ as the savior.”
See what I mean?
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/LIFESTYLE04/707120380/1041
Copies of the Gospels and other parts of the New Testament had to be preserved by the blood of the martyrs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.