A Primer on Baptist History
The True Baptist Trail
by Chris Traffanstedt
Preface
Most Christians today do not have
the foggiest idea what Church history looks like or how important it is
to understand. Even when we get specific with Church history, such as
Baptist history, people are still in the dark. This booklet, then, is a
brief history of the foundation of the group called Baptist. It is
intended to challenge you to explore Baptist history as well as all of
Church history.
Let us start with the basic premise about Baptist history: the modern
Baptist denomination originated in England and Holland in the early
seventeenth century. This origin has been debated down through history,
but our goal here is to show that our premise is closer to the true
historical facts than the other positions being held. From the early
1600's, we see two major groups emerging in England that we can classify
as Baptist: General and Particular Baptist. Before we explore these two
groups in detail, however, let us first look at the history that gave
birth to these two groups.
History Leading Up to the Foundation of Baptist
The Reformation
The year was 1517. An unknown monk by the name of Martin Luther had
posted a list of problems (95 to be exact) with one of the Church’s new
programs. In this hard-hitting list he attacked the Church’s view of
indulgences, which were the payments to the Church for attaining pardon
from sin. Luther saw these payments as an abomination to the forgiving
work of Christ. “The Ninety-Five Theses” were a call for debate,
although a debate never took place. This call did, however, shake the
people of Germany. Luther’s challenge went unnoticed for some time by
the established Church, but the people did not let it die. Through the
providence of God, a call to look to Scripture as the Christians’ sole
authority began to ring throughout Germany and other parts of Europe.
This movement, later given the name Reformation, was a movement back to
the Bible. The motto became Sola Scripture1 and
these rebels of God began to spread the Gospel message once again to the
world. Other men were used of God as well to bring this message of the
Sovereign God giving His people His Scriptures. Men like Ulrich Zwingli,
John Calvin, and John Knox have always been associated with this great
movement of God.
With the spread of the Reformation through the work of Calvin and Knox,
we see the next great impact of the Gospel in 17th century England. It
is here that we begin to see the seed bed of the Baptist movement.
English History
England was, without a doubt, a changing country both politically and
religiously. This can be seen in King Henry VIII (1509-1547) and his Act
of Supremacy (1534). This act separated the Church of England from the
control of Rome, yet even with this separation England still remained
largely Catholic in practice and doctrine.
Then King Edward VI came to the throne in 1547. Although just a boy, he
moved his country towards Protestantism. This movement was probably due
to the fact that Edward was trained by Protestant advisers. With his
youthful zeal, Edward opened the door for Protestant doctrine and
practice to flow and grow as the years went by.
However, Edward’s early death led to a radical and murderous change in
England. This change brought about a fight for the throne which was
finally taken by Mary Tudor in 1553. During her five-year reign, she
actively restored the Catholic system and began to systematically rid
England of Protestants. This activity earned her the renowned name of
“Bloody Mary”.
Elizabeth Tudor succeeded Mary and ruled from 1559 to 1603. Though not
really a religious person, Elizabeth did have an outward Catholicism.
However, political times pushed her to be accepting of Protestantism.
This political movement, tied in with the people’s reactions against the
former Queen Mary, guided England toward a Protestant position once
again. Elizabeth, not wanting to lose any type of political advantage,
drew up a compromise between Catholics and Protestants. This act was
called the “Elizabethan Settlement” and with it came the thought that
the religious wars of England were “settled”. But this only lasted for a
short period of time. Even with this “peace”, many in England still
called for greater reforms in the Church. This call for more reform
produced a group of people who would come to make up a large part of
Baptist foundations. This group is called the Puritans.
The Puritans
Sadly, most people today do not have a proper understanding of the
Puritans. They tend to be thought of as old stogies who just wanted to
spoil everybody's fun. However, the modern-day view of he Puritans is
far from the truth. Perhaps the following summation of the real Puritans
will put us on the road to a right understanding:
The essential thing in understanding the
Puritans was that they were preachers before they were anything
else...Into whatever efforts they were led in their attempts to reform
the world through the Church, and however these efforts were
frustrated by the leaders of the Church, what bound them together,
undergirded their striving, and gave them the dynamic to persist was
their consciousness that they were called to preach the Gospel.2
The Puritans wanted to see real
biblical reform come to the Church. These early Puritans were led by
Bishop Hooker and Thomas Cartwright and they began to call for a “pure”
Church. However, the Queen and the Church of England were not willing to
put up with these Puritans and thus began to enforce religious
conformity by law. Thus ended a brief period of religious peace.
The Separatists
This demand of conformity from the political and religious forces in
England produced a group known as the “Separatists”. The principles
behind this movement were the freedom of the Church from State rule,
pure doctrine rather than a watered-down or compromising doctrine, and
overall reform of the Church. The Separatists took the Bible seriously
and they were determined to order their lives by its teachings. They
stressed that the Church was only those who were the redeemed, not a
body of politically-minded upstarts. They refused to believe that the
Bible taught a hierarchical church government (rule from top down),
instead calling for a church government that had some form of
participation from the people (rule from the grass levels). They
preferred a simple worship liturgy which emphasized a Holy God. They
felt that the state forms and written aids of the Church of England led
to the people’s focusing on the forms and not the Sovereign God; thus
these types of “aids” were looked down upon.
It was out of this call for purity in the Church, both in worship and
everyday practice, that “the Baptist denomination”, as it is known
today, emerged by way of the English Separatist movement. The best
historical evidence confirms this origin, and no major scholar has
arisen this half century to challenge it.”3 As we said
earlier, Baptists emerged as two separate groups. Let us now turn our
attention to exploring these two different groups.
Early Baptists
General Baptists
This group came to be known as General Baptists because they believed in
a “general” atonement.4 The General Baptists also had a
distinct belief that Christians could face the possibility of “falling
from grace”. The two primary founders of the General Baptist movement
were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.
The earliest General Baptist Church was thought to be founded about 1608
or 1609. Its chief founder was John Smyth (1570-1612) and it was located
in Holland. Smyth’s history begins in England where he was ordained as
an Anglican priest in 1594. Soon after his ordination, his zeal landed
him in prison for refusal to conform to the teachings and practices of
the Church of England. He was an outspoken man who was quick to
challenge others about their beliefs but was just as quick to change his
own positions as his own personal theology changed. Smyth continually
battled the Church of England until it became obvious that he could no
longer stay in fellowship with this church. Thus, he finally broke
totally from them and became a “Separatist”.
In 1609, Smyth, along with a group in Holland, came to believe in
believer’s baptism (as opposed to infant baptism which was the norm at
that time) and they came together to form the first “Baptist” church. In
the beginning, Smyth was on track with the typical orthodox church
position; but as time passed, as was so typical, he began changing his
positions. First, Smyth insisted that true worship was from the heart
and that any form of reading from a book in worship was an invention of
sinful man. Prayer, singing and preaching had to be completely
spontaneous. He went so far with this mentality that he would not allow
the reading of the Bible during worship “since he regarded English
translations of Scripture as something less than the direct word of
God.”5 Second, Smyth introduced a twofold church leadership,
that of Pastor and Deacon. This was in contrast to the Reformational
trifold leadership of Pastor-Elder, Lay-Elders, and Deacons.
Third, with his newfound position on baptism, a whole new concern arose
for these “Baptists”. Having been baptized as infants, they all realized
that they would have to be re-baptized. Since there was no other
minister to administer baptism, Smyth baptized himself and then
proceeded to baptize his flock. An interesting note at this point that
should be brought to bear is that the mode of baptism used was that of
pouring, for immersion would not become the standard for another
generation. Before his death, as seems characteristic of Smyth, he
abandoned his Baptist views and began trying to bring his flock into the
Mennonite church. Although he died before this happened, most of his
congregation did join themselves with the Mennonite church after his
death.
Now we turn our attention to Thomas Helwys. He had a somewhat rocky
relationship with Smyth, but after Smyth began moving away from the
General Baptist belief, Helwys carried on the Baptist beginnings. Helwys
led his small group to England in 1611 and this was considered to be the
first Baptist Church on English soil. This group held to believer’s
baptism, they rejected Calvinism for a free will position (which
included falling from grace), and they allowed each church to elect its
officers, both elders and deacons.6 By 1624, there were five
known General Baptist churches and by 1650 they numbered at least 47.7
Even though some might see the modern-day Baptist movement in this
group, we must understand that the beliefs of this group are far from
the reformed heritage that shaped modern-day Baptist belief.
Particular Baptists
It is often said that the Baptists in England divided over the doctrine
of the atonement, but this is not a true historical reflection. Yes, it
is true that the two groups held differing views on atonement and
doctrine in general, but they did not divide. Rather, they emerged as
two separate groups. As with the General Baptists, the Particular
Baptists came out of the Separatist movement. This group emerged in the
1630's. This group was influenced by the great reformer John Calvin and
held strongly to a “particular” atonement.8 The first church
was thought to be founded around 1633 or 1638, according to some.
Regardless of this datum, however, it is clear that by 1644 the
Particular Baptists numbered at least seven churches. One amazing point
about this small and very young group is that in 1644 these churches
acted together to issue a confession of faith called the First
London Confession of Faith. This confession preceded the widely
known Westminster Confession of Faith by two years. As we will
see, the present-day Baptist churches can be traced back to these early
Baptists.
Although typical Baptist history is given more to the General Baptist
movement, it is actually the Particular Baptists to which most
modern-day Baptists owe their doctrine and practices. As one historian
reminds us, General Baptists:
always represented a small part of
Baptist life in England, and an even smaller part in America. Their
influence upon the main currents of Baptist life in either country
appears to have been slight.9
The history of the Particular
Baptist movement starts with Henry Jacob (1563-1624). Although Jacob
never became a Baptist, he was a basic influence to what would become
the Particular Baptists. We could call Jacob a moderate Separatist.
Jacob was not willing to call the Church of England the antichrist;
thus, he worked continually to reform her. In 1603, Jacob signed a
document that called for reform in the Church of England. This document
was to be thwarted by King James I. Although Jacob did not call for
separation, he did write a treatise entitled Reasons taken out of
Gods Word and the best humane Testimonies proving a necessitie of
reforming our Churches in England. With the publication of this
book, Jacob was thrown in prison for a short time. Upon his release, he
went into exile in Holland as did most of the Separatists. Even though
he was reluctant to come down radically on the Church of England, he did
come to make a distinction between true and false churches of the Church
of England. This new mindset moved him to call for freedom to form
different types of churches with alternate kinds of worship.
In 1616, Jacob was able to return to England and formed the JLJ Church,
as it is known today.10 It was this church that would later
give rise to Particular Baptists. This church had several debates arise
in its midst about baptism, debates which led to several different
breaks in the JLJ church. One such break came in 1633 when sixteen
persons asked the church to let them step away from the JLJ church to
form a separate church. The reasons for this break were twofold. The
first was out of necessity. The JLJ church was becoming too big and in
danger of being “found out” (since it was illegal to be outside of the
Church of England). The second reason was cited as too much conformity
to the Church of England. In 1638, another break came when six people
left the JLJ church on the issue of believer's baptism, which they held
to strongly. Thus, the first Particular Baptist Church can be traced to
either or both of these churches.
Overview of Baptist Origins
As we have tried to make clear, history points out that the origins of
Baptist Life came out of the Separatist Movement in the 1600's in
England. However, this is not the only view that has been put forth
about the origins of Baptists. For the sake of clearing up history, we
do need to briefly explore these other positions that have been stated
about the origin of the Baptist movement.
Anabaptist Influence
Most Baptists are fooled into thinking that we come from the Anabaptists
just because the word “baptist” is found in their name. But we must use
great caution here. We must explore who the Anabaptists really were and
ask the all-important question: Are they truly representative of Baptist
beliefs?
Who are these people called “Anabaptist”? This group refers to a
community of rebels during the Reformation period; they were considered
to be the radical wing of the Reformation. Even within this group there
were various views and camps. Two main separate camps can be identified:
the “revolutionary Anabaptist” and the “evangelical Anabaptist.”11
We really do not want to spend too much time on the revolutionary group
for they hardly reflect a biblical approach to Christianity. They
actually took on the form of a cult, holding to an extreme mystical
experiential view and believing their leaders to be prophets
(future-tellers). They were also quick to use violence to get their way.
However, the “evangelical” Anabaptists were a movement of a different
type. And it is from this group that many say the Baptist movement was
born. Thus, we need to take some time to examine them. This group, first
of all, rejected the orthodox Christian view of sin. Instead of holding
to sin as a bondage both of the nature and actions of mankind, they held
that sin was “a loss of capacity or a serious sickness.”12
The Anabaptists, in following Rome's view of justification, held that
God makes us righteous and then accepts us on the basis of our
righteousness. They also believed that Christ did not take His flesh
from Mary but held to a heavenly origin for His flesh. When it came to
the world, the Anabaptists believe we were to totally separate ourselves
from it (although they did dip into it with a zealous evangelism on
occasion). The Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and held to
believer's baptism, but their mode for the most part was sprinkling, not
pouring or immersion. Their view of interpreting Scripture was that of
just strict imitation which led to large movements of legalism.13
When we look at the Anabaptists we must agree that there are some
similarities with the early General Baptists, but overall these
similarities are slight and not always relational. In the end, we must
come to say that this group of Christians does not reflect the
historical teaching of the Baptists. The large portion of Baptist
history shows us that Baptists held to a strong position on sin, both in
our nature and in our actions, not as just some mere sickness. Baptists
have also held to a belief in the virgin birth and see that this is what
points to the doctrine of the God-Man, not just some heavenly illusion.
As well, Baptists have held strongly to the Reformation's recovery of
justification - that it is based upon Christ's righteousness alone and
not our righteousness because we have none. And finally, Baptists have
always seen that the Scriptures are to be studied and applied to
everyday life through the power of the Holy Spirit and are not to be
followed just in blind imitation or by a leap of faith. So we must
clearly reject, as history does, that the Baptist origins flow from the
Anabaptists.
Continuation or Succession of Baptist Teaching
The next view of Baptist origin is not held as strongly today but still
finds expression in some Baptist circles. This view is known as the
Continuation or Successionist view. It states that the Baptist church
can be traced back through the ages in an unbroken succession of
organized Baptist churches (although they all did not have the name
Baptist) to Jesus Christ and John the Baptist. We must be careful in the
way we refute this position, for we in no way want to say that our
Baptist heritage has not come from Christ and the truths laid out in
Holy Scripture. But we must speak against a position that lays out a
history with a trail of real Baptist churches that can be traced from
the New Testament to the present day.
This Successionist view has been presented in a little booklet called
The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll. This booklet tries to show that
“according to History...Baptists have an unbroken line of churches since
Christ.” This book and others like it have stressed that John the
Baptist represents the denominational start and that Jesus formed it and
promised that it would never fail. They have made arrogant statements
like “the real church is Baptist” and “all Christian communities during
the first three centuries were of the Baptist denomination.” These types
of views are based upon inadequate sources and upon more of a polemical
mindset than a historical one. They make large assumptions where
evidence is lacking. This hard-core position arose in a time (1800's) of
intense denominational competition, when people believed faith was
something that came from within themselves and not a wonderful gift of
God’s grace. Many thought that this type of view would bring back a
security that had been lost with the emergence of modern-day society.14
We must also be reminded that almost all early Baptists rejected a
successionist view. John Smyth was one of these, as can be seen in his
writings: “I deny all succession except in the truth” and “There is no
succession in the outward church, but that all succession is from
heaven.”15 Thomas Helwys, speaking out against a
successionist mindset, said: “No man can ever prove it...cast it away,
seeing there is no warrant in God's word to warrant it unto you, that he
or they were the first.”16 Also, John Spilsbury, a Particular
Baptist pastor, stated: “There is no succession under the New Testament,
but what is spiritually by faith and the Word of God.”17 This
last quote gives us the proper way to look at ourselves as Baptists.
Though we have not always existed as a Baptist denomination, it is upon
the eternal truth of God’s Word which we have been formed! Again, we are
reminded of this in The Baptist Confession of Faith chapter 26.3:
The purest churches under heaven are
subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to
become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless
Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world,
to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of
his name.
Thus, what we must see is that the
Baptist denomination started out of the Reformation, specifically the
Separatists in England. With this in mind, we are a Protestant group who
must reflect our traditional Reformed background and hold, as our
forefathers did, to the doctrines of grace, justification by faith
alone, the authority of Scripture and the priesthood of all believers.18
The Flow of Baptist History
Let us now return to how Baptists flourished in England and then how they
moved to the United States. We must pay special attention to the move to
the New World for it is here we American Baptists find our direct
Baptist forefathers.
Baptists in England
We now see that by the mid 1600’s both Baptist groups were functioning in
England. But what, exactly, happened to these two different groups; what
happened to their churches? The General Baptists entered the 1600’s with
a growing movement, but as the 1600’s closed and the 1700’s dawned, this
group was reeling from doctrinal problems. The deity of Christ began to
be questioned and the atonement was watered down even further from its
Arminian19 position. The General Baptists were dying out
quickly with this anti-biblical mentality. However, in 1763, a Methodist
convert named Dan Taylor revived the General Baptists for a time,
calling them back to a biblical outlook. But once again this “New
Connection” (1770) only lasted a short time. The reason that this
outlook was lost fairly quickly was probably due to the fact that the
General Baptists had enlisted into their ranks less than knowledgeable
pastors and leaders. It only took about one more generation for the
General Baptists to largely depart from history.
The Particular Baptists were a different story. The 1600’s brought large
growth to them even amidst the religious persecution raging in England.
In 1644, the Particular Baptists published The First Baptist
Confession. This Confession was Calvinistic in its character and
rejected all suggestions that they were “Anabaptist.” Although this
Confession was not comprehensive, it was a strong document which helped
pull together the early Particular Baptists.
Then in 1677, a second confession was drawn up reflecting the
Westminster Confession (1647) and the Savoy Declaration
(1658). In most of its parts, this confession followed the
Westminster Confession but in its position on church government
(the critical issue here was church power) the Baptist Confession
follows the Savoy Declaration.20 This new Baptist
confession set out to deal with the issues of what type of power the
associational representatives in the churches had over the local
churches. Also, it dealt with baptism by putting forth a position on
believer’s baptism rather than holding to infant baptism. We must keep
in mind that this distinction was not arrived at by following the
“Anabaptist,” but emerged through an intense desire to reflect Scripture
as it has been delivered to us.
The Particular Baptists in England had their decline as well, but theirs
was a movement to the right not the left. The beginnings of
“hyper-calvinism”22
It was in 1707 that the Philadelphia Baptist Association was founded.
This strong Particular Baptist fellowship has had a lasting effect on
Baptists in America. In 1742, this association adopted the London
Baptist Confession of 1689 as its founding confession, and gave it
a new name: The Philadelphia Confession of Faith. These
Baptists were quick to put their beliefs into action, and in 1770 they
founded a college and began to send missionaries regularly throughout
America. From this time forward, Particular Baptists overshadowed the
failing General Baptists. But even with its strong historical and
doctrinal position, the Particular Baptists also began to lose doctrinal
purity in the New World.
The Decline of Particular Baptist
The question we will close this booklet with is: Why did Baptists lose
their reformational heritage? How did this loss of doctrine take place?
Samuel E. Waldron, in his book Baptist Roots in America,23
gives us several reasons for this great decline in our heritage. These
factors are very important for us to understand for, as is typical, we
modern-day Baptists are continuing in the same mistakes of years gone
by. Let’s begin to explore Waldron’s assessment of this great decline.
First, Waldron calls our attention to “The American, Democratic Ethos.”
This was the American mindset of absolute freedom which came with the
American Revolution. America had a strong independent mentality and this
worldview began to spill over into the Church. As with any independent,
self-centered worldview, the Sovereign God is placed on the shelf, so to
speak, for a God who will not impede upon our independence. This type of
ethos was what led to the beginning of the decline of the Particular
Baptist beliefs.
Secondly, we see a cause of the decline in Particular Baptists in the
“revivalism” that swept through our country in the 1700’s and 1800’s. We
must not misunderstand this point; the problem was not with revival but
with the responses to revival. It was the two extreme responses that
have caused this great tragedy. One extreme to this revivalism began
with the idea that there must be order in the church. This led to a
hard-core legalism which caused a slow death to those churches that took
this stance, and as the Particular Baptists fell into this position they
began to decline. The other extreme was an experiential giving over to
the wiles of one’s heart. This led to an anti-traditional position and
opened the doors to Arminianism. This new method of church was appealing
to many Baptists, for they saw their survival; but instead of survival
it produced a virus within the church which attacked the very core of
Baptist reformational heritage.
Thirdly, we see “syncretism” as the next downfall of Particular Baptists.
Syncretism is bringing together two positions as one. This meshing of
theology in the early stages of our country was seen by some as a need
so that the Gospel could go forth without hindrance. But this syncretism
led to a theological fallout which damned Baptist heritage to a weak,
watered-down version of its Calvinistic roots. As with the children of
Israel in the Old Testament, so Baptists in America have allowed the
lure of contemporary culture to blind them to the truths which God has
set forth.
Fourthly, when there is a movement to water down theology there comes a
shift to the other extreme. This swing was “hyper-calvinism.” Many today
need to be challenged at this point, for what they call Calvinism is not
true biblical Calvinism but is of the “hyper” variety. Because one does
not like a position, he does not have the right to define it in its
extreme forms. However, we must see that “hyper-calvinism” has nothing
to do with true Calvinism and we must be quick to state that it has no
part in Christianity. “Hyper-calvinism is the denial of the idea that
the gospel call addresses those who are not elect...it is the denial of
the idea that faith is the duty of everyone who hears the gospel.”24
As we said earlier, when a hard position is taken, slow death is sure to
follow. When several of the Particular Baptist churches became “hyper-calvinist”,
their demise was at hand. And with their demise went those churches who
were tagged as “hyper-calvinist”, for its seems when the tag is placed
upon one who resembles such a disastrous position they too are radically
affected.
Fifthly, the decline was also a result of “Liberalism.” This new
worldview hit America by storm and was eadily accepted in some form or
another. When this group began to stress individualism above all else,
the strong view of the sovereignty of God and the absolutes of Scripture
began to crumble in the church. Many churches began to accept this
position after the Civil War and Particular Baptists’ influence was on
the wane as was all orthodox belief.
Lastly, we see that the “Fundamentalist Movement” was another strong
factor in the decline of Particular Baptists in America. The
Fundamentalists, responding to liberalism, produced an unexpected
opposite extreme - that of legalism. This new Christian mindset called
for a general view of doctrine. They held that the great reclaimed
truths of the Reformation were unimportant, for they believed that
doctrine led one to rely on knowledge alone without opening the Bible.
They held to a non-credal position and stressed the emotions far more
than doctrines. This led to what can be called a “dumbing-down” of
biblical and doctrinal knowledge and eventually ushered in an
“easy-believism” salvation. This “new” view of salvation stressed a
man-centered faith instead of a God-centered one. As with any
man-centered position, doctrine was lost. And when doctrine was lost, so
was our great Baptist heritage.
A Call for Reformation
Now that we have seen the historical foundations of the Baptist church
and that they can be traced back to the Particular Baptists, we now need
to reclaim our heritage. The longer we stay away from Reformed doctrine
the longer we will see a decline in biblical knowledge and spirituality.
We must see that Baptist heritage is strongly rooted in the Reformation
which reclaimed Scripture from a pragmatic church. As we look around us
today, we see that most Baptist churches (and for that matter the
Evangelical church as a whole) are eaten up with pragmatism.25
If we are going to see Reformation today, we must call ourselves back to
our Reformed heritage. It has been Baptist theology that has had one of
the most striking impacts in the world since the 1700's. But we must not
allow a watered-down version of Baptist theology to stop our continual
impact. If we are going to call ourselves Baptists, we must follow our
forefathers in their pursuit of biblical purity to the orthodox
Christian doctrines. We are a doctrinal people, a people who have flowed
out of the Reformation to call a world to follow the Sovereign God who
sent His Son to die on the cross for all who would believe! Let us begin
this Reformation today!
Endnotes
1 This is the Latin for Scripture Alone.
2 Cited from J.I. Packer, A Quest for
Godliness.
3 H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage,
(Broadman Press: Nashville, 1987), p.31.
4 A general atonement is the belief that
Christ died for every single person who has lived or will ever live.
5 McBeth, p.35.
6 They held that both men and women could
be deacons.
7 McBeth, p. 39.
8 Particular Atonement is the belief that
Christ died for his chosen people alone.
9 Cited in H. Leon McBeth, The Baptist
Heritage, p. 40.
10 It was named the JLJ after the initials
of its first three pastors; Henry Jacob, John Lathrop, and Henry Jessey.
11 “Anabaptist Theology” in New Dictionary
of Theology, (InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, Illinois, 1988), p. 18.
12 Ibid, p. 18.
13 A view of strict imitation is one in
which a person will only live out direct passages of Scripture. Thus, if
it is not laid out word for word in Scripture we have no part in doing
or thinking about it. There is no room for principles, nor a systematic
look at Scripture.
14 For more study, see H. Leon McBeth The
Baptist Heritage, pp. 58-61.
15 Quoted in H. Leon McBeth The Baptist
Heritage, p.60.
16 Ibid, p.60-61.
17 Ibid, p. 61.
18 The doctrine of the priesthood of all
believers has historically taught that the Holy Spirit teaches His
people individually through “private judgment”, “the present community
of saints” and “Christian heritage.”
19 Arminianism holds that salvation is
open to all mankind and is based upon man’s decision to accept or reject
Christ.
20 The Savoy was the Congregationalist
confession and was penned by John Owen, Thomas Goodwin, Philip Nye,
William Bridge, Joseph Caryl and William Greenhill (all but Owen had
been on the Westminster Assembly).
21 Hyper-calvinism is the belief that God
has so planned the world that secondary-causes (our actions) are not
necessary at all. This view is not historically reflecting Calvinism. We
could call this view “anti-calvinism” for it is not reflecting the
biblical teachings of God and His creation as does true Calvinism.
22 McBeth, p. 200.
23 Samuel E. Waldron Baptist Roots in
America, (Simpson Publishing Company: Boonton; New Jersey, 1991).
24 Ibid, p. 22.
25 Pragmatism is that belief which says
"if it works it must be right". It is an ends-justifies-the-means
mentality.
