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!
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.
Copyright ©1999-2007, The Reformed Reader, All Rights Reserved