Baptists are Not Protestants Part 2 of 3

The origin of the Baptists has been a subject of intense debate. Currently, the view that prevails holds that modern Baptists grew out of sixteenth century English Separatism. Others believe the Baptists descended from the Anabaptists of the Reformation era. Still others hold the organic succession view which sees a visible or literal succession of Baptist churches from the apostolic period to the present. This succession is by a chain of ordination (Apostolic succession), proper baptism or church succession. There is no historical or, certainly, no biblical evidence for the organic succession view.

The Scriptures suggest that the New Testament church was organized, at least in embryonic form, during Christ’s earthly ministry. (Matthew 16:18, Matthew 18:17) Christ, in Matthew 16:18, promised the church’s perpetuity through all ages. Paul, in Ephesians 3:21, confirms it. On this scriptural foundation some Baptist historians such as Thomas Armitage and John T. Christian, contend for a succession of spiritual principles only. Armitage contends, “The very attempt to trace an unbroken line of persons duly baptized…or ministers ordained by lineal descent from the apostles, or of churches organized upon these principles… is…an attempt to build a bulwark of error.” He goes on to say, “Pure doctrine as it is found in the uncorrupted Word of God, is the only unbroken line of succession which can be traced in Christianity.”

Christian also rejects any form of visible church succession. With Armitage, he too believes the Baptists originated in the days of Christ and that, “The footsteps of the Baptists of the ages can more easily be traced by their blood than by baptism. It is a lineage of suffering, rather than succession of bishops; a martyrdom of principle, rather than dogmatic decrees of councils; a golden chord of love, rather than an iron chain of succession…It is, nevertheless, a right royal succession, that in every age the Baptists have been advocates of liberty for all, and have held that the gospel of the Son of God makes every man a free man in Christ Jesus. (Christian, Vol.1, pp. 21-23)

Christian further states: The author believes that in every age since Jesus and the apostles, there have been companies of believers, churches, who have substantially held to the principles of the New Testament as now proclaimed by the Baptists. No attempt is made in these pages to trace a succession of bishops, as the Roman Catholics attempt to do, back to the apostles. Such an attempt is “laboring in the fire for mere vanity,” and proceeds upon a mistaken view of the nature of the kingdom of Christ, and of the sovereignty of God, in his operations on the earth. Jesus himself, in a reply to an inquiry put to him by the Pharisees (Luke 17:20-24), compares his kingdom to the lightning, darting its rays in the most sovereign and uncontrollable manner from one extremity of the heavens to the other. And this view corresponds to God’s dealings in the spiritual realm. Wherever God has his elect, there in his own proper time, he sends the gospel to save them, and churches after his model are organized (William Jones, the History of the Christian Church, xvii. Philadelphia. 1832).

The New Testament recognizes a democratic simplicity and not a hierarchical monarchy. There is no irregularity, but a perpetual proclamation of principles. There is no intimation that there was not a continuity of churches, for doubtless there was, but our insistence is that this was not the dominant note in apostolic life. No emphasis is put on a succession of baptisms, or the historical order of churches. Some of the apostles were disciples of John the Baptist (John 1:35), but there is no record of the baptism of others, though they were baptized. Paul, the great missionary, was baptized by Ananias (Acts 9:17, 18), but it is not known who baptized Ananias. Nothing definite is known of the origin of the church at Damascus. The church at Antioch became the great foreign missionary center, but the history of its origin is not distinctly given. The church at Rome was already in existence when Paul wrote to them his letter. These silences occur all through the New Testament, but there is a constant recurrence of type, a persistence of fundamental doctrines, and a proclamation of principles. This marked the whole apostolic period, and for that matter, every period since that time.

The recurrence of type is recognized even where error was detected. The disciples desired Jesus to rebuke a man who walked not with them (Mark 9:40), but this Jesus refused to do. The church at Corinth was imperfect in practice and life. The Judaizing teachers constantly perverted the gospel; and John the Evangelist, in his last days, combated insidious error, but the great doctrines of the atoning work of Christ, conversion and repentance, the baptism of believers, the purity of the church, the freedom of the soul, and the collateral truths, were everywhere avowed. At times these principles have been combated and those who held them persecuted, often they have been obscured; sometimes they have been advocated by ignorant men, and at other times by brilliant graduates of the universities, who frequently mixed the truth with philosophical speculations; yet always, often under the most varied conditions, these principles have come to the surface.

Baptist churches have the most slender ties of organization, and a strong government is not according to their polity. They are like the river Rhone, which sometimes flows as a river broad and deep, but at other times is hidden in the sands. It, however, never loses its continuity or existence. It is simply hidden for a period. Baptist churches may disappear and reappear in the most unaccountable manner. Persecuted everywhere by sword and by fire, their principles would appear to be almost extinct, when in a most wondrous way God would raise up some man, or some company of martyrs, to proclaim the truth.