The Baptist Family Tree

Paulicians, Anabaptists, Separatists: From Whom Did We Come?
Barry Pendley Did George Washington chop down the cherry tree? I don’t know. Did Al Gore invent the Internet? Highly doubtful! We chafe when we hear attempts to rewrite history. Some people may consider this to be a unique problem. Yet it is a problem that has existed for millennia. For example, an Egyptian pharaoh tried to “erase” Queen Hathshepshut’s name from obelisks and documents simply because she was a woman pharaoh. Through careful research and archaeological findings, we have learned that she did exist. As an interesting aside, some biblical scholars believe that she was the Egyptian princess who found Moses in the bulrushes.

Rewrites occur for various reasons. In some cases, “historians” attempt to persuade the reader of his preconceived opinions and gloss over the facts. Other times, sincere historians unwittingly use documents that were written by these “historians.” That is why we have many different views for one historical moment. One historian wrote, “Probably the highest duty of the historian is to acquaint himself with as many factual sources as possible and correlate those facts into a readable and living record.”

When it comes to Baptist origins, we need to understand that these Christians are not immune from the effects of human depravity. Errors have crept into our Baptist History books – a few intentionally, many unwittingly. While the subject of Baptist origins is not a major issue, some clarification needs to be made.

There are different views of Baptist origins. Essentially, one could “boil” down the various views into two categories – the “Successionist” and “English Separatist” views.

Successionist views
Landmark theory. Also known as the JJJ (Jesus-Jordan-John) view, this theory states that we can trace the Baptists back to these three. Although the name “Baptist” did not appear throughout the centuries, they claim that Baptists did exist. As J.M. Carroll illustrated in his chart, Baptists were known by various nicknames – Montanists, Cathari, Donatists, Waldenses, Anabaptists, etc. (See illustration.) His chart illustrates the view that Baptists have existed in parallel succession to the Roman Catholic Church.

Spiritual kinship theory. Some are careful to distinguish themselves from the above strict Landmark view. They do recognize that it is impossible to prove that the Baptist denomination existed. However, they still strongly emphasize a succession of Baptist beliefs among these believers. They call this a “spiritual” connection. Often, they present this historical connection with a dogmatism that sometimes confuses them with the Landmark-
ists. They are especially intrigued by the Anabaptists and maintain that Baptists have direct successionist roots from them.

The problems with the successionist views. These views have gained popularity among Baptists since the early 1900s. Why have these views been adopted by many? The following statements are commonly used to support the above views.

“Since Christ promised that He would establish His church in every age, and Baptists are the true Church, they must be found in every age.”

Successionists buttress this claim by the following verses. They believe that Christ taught that Baptists (or those who are Baptistic) are the true church, and He promises that they will continue to survive.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Mt 16.18)

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. (Mt 28.19–20)

Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (Eph 3.21)

Successionists claim that these verses speak only of “local churches.” They deny that a universal body of Christ exists. Therefore, they believe that a succession of local churches is essential because of Christ’s promises. This interpretation violates at least one principle of biblical interpretation. This principle is that interpretations must be consistent with the whole of Scripture. Those who deny that the universal church exists do so because they assume the Bible never teaches that.

Consider the word “church” in the following passage:

And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way. (Eph 1.22–23)

The word “church” in this passage can only mean the sum total of all believers, the “universal church.” The “successionist” cannot legitimately interpret this as a “local congregation.” If this referred to a local church, the verse “which is his [Christ’s] body, the fullness of him who fills everything in every way” would pose serious theological difficulties.

Anyone familiar with local churches will readily admit that unsaved people are often a part of the membership. Furthermore, there are Christians who are not members of a local church.

A “universal” church does exist. Other passages teach the same (Heb 12.23; Col 1.18). Since the Scriptural evidence is clear that a “universal” church does exist, one should not try to force Matthew 16.18; 28.19–20; and Ephesians 3.21 to speak of a local church. To deny the “universal” church and press these passages to refer to the local church is to deny the whole teaching of Scripture and foist an alien meaning upon these passages.

Another principle of interpretation violated by the successionist is that a verse cannot mean what it never meant. The “John 3.16” of the successionist position is Christ’s promise in Matthew 16.18. It is usually the starting point for the successionist’s argument that Jesus Christ promised that the gates of hell should not prevail against the local church? When Jesus spoke of the church in this passage, did the apostles understand it as a local church? This passage is the first use of the word “church” in the NT. The word “church” means a “called out assembly.” Not until the book of Acts does the word “church” take on the more technical definition of “local assembly.” When Jesus Christ spoke of the “church” He was not intending to be unclear. The disciples knew what He meant. The church, all believers in their sum total would not have to fear a destruction by the gates of Hades. Jesus Christ did not tell the disciples that local Baptist churches would continue until eternity. If He did make this promise, why do we not see the Baptist name prior to the 1600s? Why do local Baptist Churches occasionally die off? When Christ made the promise in Matthew 16.18, He was not giving Baptists a promise for an succession of their denomination. What He meant, and the disciples understood, the gates of Hades will not prevail against the sum total of those who have placed their faith in Christ.

“Anabaptists, Waldenses, Paulicians, Donatists, and Tertullians all baptized by immersion those who professed faith in Christ. Furthermore, these groups rejected a hierarchical church government, therefore, they were Baptists.”

While it is true that some of these groups held to viewpoints shared by Baptists today, it is not conclusive (or desirable) to say that they were Baptists. Groups other than Baptists held to the same beliefs (e.g., Puritans and Congregationalists). Some of these groups were heretical in many of their beliefs.

The Anabaptists had many views that were non-Baptist. They practiced pacifism. That is a belief that Christians are not to participate in war. They also believed that it is wrong for Christians to make oaths. Do Anabaptists still exist? Yes. They are not Baptists. They are still called Anabaptists and Mennonites.

Furthermore, the first Baptists did much to disassociate themselves from the Anabaptists. The Second London Baptist Confession of the Faith in 1689 contained the subtitle, “Commonly but falsely called Anabaptists.” The next edition reworded the subtitle as “Commonly and unjustly called Anabaptists.” It is a curious thing that the defining document of Baptists is typically ignored in the successionist literature. Perhaps this little phrase would spoil (as it does) their contention that Baptists are Anabaptists.

“A succession to the days of John and Jesus is proof that Baptists are the true Church.”

Amid the multitudes stood Jesus. Behold the Lamb of God! exclaimed the enraptured herald of the kingdom. And then in those waters, consecrated by a thousand sacred associations, Jesus was baptized, while from the parting heavens came the approving voice of the Father, and the anointing symbol of the Holy Ghost. Thus it was, and there it was, that our denomination had its origin. Nor can learning nor ingenuity fix another spot, nor another period. Baptists! the flag that floats over you is that of Jesus only; the principles that govern you have the authority of Jesus only; the ordinances which distinguish you have the example of Jesus only; and the founder of your churches is Jesus only. S.H. Ford, The Origin of Baptists, pp. 104–5.[emphasis his]

[The] designation being “Ana-Baptist.” This compound word applied as a designation of some certain Christians was first found in history during the third century; and a suggestive fact soon after the origin of Infant Baptism, and a more suggestive fact even prior to the use of the name “Catholic.” Thus the name “Ana-Baptists” is the oldest denominational name in history. J.M. Carroll, The Trail of Blood, p. 51. [emphasis his]

Pure doctrine, as it is found uncorrupted in the word of God is the only unbroken, though often disturbed, line of succession which can be traced thru all the centuries . . . in fact if the Church perished and no longer existed it meant that Christ was unable to prevent that disaster and the Gates of Hades did prevail against the Church. We simply DO NOT believe this has occurred. Therefore we must reject the JOHN SMYTHE (1608) See-Baptism movement as the origin of the Baptists. A.A. Davis, The Baptist Story, pp. 8–9 [emphasis his]

It would be nice to say that Baptists have a direct succession from the time of Christ. However, a succession neither proves nor disproves that a church is biblical. Using a succession construct to prove that Baptists are the true Church smacks of the Roman Catholic tradition in proving Apostolic succession from the Apostle Peter. Some Landmarkists follow certain Mennonites in claiming baptismal succession. That is, one can genealogically trace his baptism back to John the Baptist. We would not say that a succession proves the Catholic theory, nor should we use a succession to prove a Baptist theory. History is based on factual documentation, not on presumption.

English Separatist View
Having outlined and interacted with the successionist views above, it should be clear to the reader that Baptist origins, in view of this writer, cannot be traced back to John the Baptist. From all known documentation, Baptists originated in England in the early 1600s. We have no other historical documentation of Baptist existence prior to this time.

Does this mean that Anabaptists (or other earlier groups) had no influence on the early Baptists? No. The influence was there, but it was quite minor compared to the influence of the English Separatists.

Who were the English Separatists? How did the Baptists rise out of this contingent of believers? These things will be developed in future Sola! articles.

Conclusion This is a minor issue and it should be understood that this writer does not view this as a cardinal issue. Yet, the underlying problem is worth the effort in correcting. Some believe that a historical progression is necessary to prove that the Baptist faith is the true faith. The marks of true faith are based on Scripture, not historical genealogy.

While minor, these successionist views are still being promoted in most Baptist Bible colleges today. You will usually find at least one faculty member on staff that holds to these views. With that in mind, consider the following quotes from three fundamental Baptist seminary professors:

“In the church history course that I teach from the Reformation to the 19th century, I present the origins of the Baptists as a branch of the English Separatists. Others at Calvary advocate the spiritual kinship theory.” Clint Banz, Librarian and Church History professor at Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary

“No one at Central affirms a Landmark view of Baptist history. In fact, we are quite committed to opposing this view . . . Genetically and historically, Baptists do come out of English separatism. We have great spiritual kinship with some Anabaptists (e.g., the Swiss brethren), but not with others (e.g., the Muensterites). The Waldenses are probably more like Presbyterians than they are like Baptists: We probably have people [that hold to a spiritual kinship view and an English Separatist view].” Kevin Bauder, Ph.D. Systematic and Historical Theological Department Chair at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, Minnesota

“We at DBTS hold to the English Separatist view of Baptist origins, while recognizing a doctrinal kinship with groups who are not Baptist but, to some degree, embrace New Testament principles which Baptists affirm. The agreement would be limited to select doctrines, not with the groups holding them. For example, some sects in church history practiced adult baptism, but they were heretical in other respects. True Baptists accept the practice but not as a ‘successor’ to the heretical group. Following the strict successionist view requires either forcing earlier groups into a ‘Baptist’ mold, or relying on historical tradition for the validation of belief, rather than the New Testament.” Dr. Gerald Priest, Professor of Historical Theology, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary

What’s in our Name?

Barry PendlyThere is an identity crisis. Every year more Baptist churches remove the label “Baptist” from their signs, replacing it with terms like “Community,” “Bible” or “Christian.” This trend is neither new nor unique to the Baptist denomination. Lutherans, the Church of Christ, Pentecostals, and many other groups are repainting their signs. What is causing this paradigm shift? Why are groups wanting to “shed” their name and apply a more coy identity? Some feel that their names have negative connotations. Others desire academic respectability. All believe that shedding their name will benefit them in some way and bring growth.

Baptists have no reason to be ashamed of their name. While there have been some anomalies among Baptists, generally speaking, the name “Baptist” still speaks truth to our pagan culture.

Are names important?

Names are important for at least two reasons: they identify objects, and they identify certain qualities about objects. Without a name, identification would nearly be impossible.

Throughout the Bible, names and labels were used to identify groups of people and their beliefs. Believers in the early church were known by various names:

“Christians”

The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. (Ac 11.26)

“The Way”

I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. (Ac 24.14)

“Saints”

To the saints in Ephesus (Eph 1.1)

Also, heretical groups were known by their names: the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the little known Nicolaitans.

Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. (Rev 2.15)

The above passages demonstrate that names were used by the early believers to identify belief and unbelief. This is of great importance when considering the value of a name. Throughout the Bible, names were used to identify the beliefs, values, and practices of people or groups. They were never used to hide beliefs, values, and practices. Names, designations, and labels were always used to reveal, never conceal. Religious group names were used to identify beliefs and distinctives.

Is there an appropriate name for the body of Christ?

One may legitimately ask “Is there an appropriate name for the body of Christ?” The name “Christian” was applied to those who were identified by a certain quality – they were Christ-like. Hence, the name “Christian” was applied to the disciples (Ac 11.26). There is some question whether the name was given to them in derision or whether the disciples themselves chose the name. We cannot be sure. However, we do know that the disciples did not reject this label.

We all know how Peter denied Christ three times. Fearing for his life, he refused to be identified with Christ. It was a difficult lesson, but he learned it well and encouraged others to identify themselves with the Christian label.

. . . if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. (1Pe 4.16)

The name “Christian” was important. It was not merely a label, but much more than that. It identified the early believers as those who were followers of Christ. They kept the label and identified themselves by it.

Is it enough to identify ourselves simply as Christian? We should retain the “Christian” label, but that is not enough by which to identify ourselves. Today, many unbelievers call themselves Christians. Therefore, this designation must be appended by another name to bring clarity and understanding to the world at large.

Is “Baptist” an appropriate name?

Since the designation “Christian” is not enough to clearly communicate one’s belief system, many have further clarified what it means to be a Christian by adopting denominational names. It should be admitted that the “Baptist” name as a denomination cannot be found in the New Testament. Nor does one find any modern denominational labels used as such in the NT. That is not the issue. Throughout the centuries believers have used different names to communicate more clearly their identity and their belief system. The Baptist name has an identity that carries much historical and theological freight. To discard the name, one risks losing his historical and theological identity – a positive identity I may add.

The historical identity of Baptists In the 1600s a group of British Christians became known as “Baptists.” They held to very distinct beliefs like soul-liberty, the priesthood of the believer, the separation of church and state, and most peculiarly, believer’s baptism by immersion after a credible testimony of repentant faith in Christ. The exact origin of this label is unknown. We find in the writings of the early Baptists the names: “The church of God,” “The church of Christ,” “The Baptized Christians,” “The Baptized People.” The name “Baptist” was regularly applied to these believers since the 1640s. Was this a name given in derision? Maybe. The Quakers were some of the first to use the name. However, the immersed believers did not reject the name.

We also know that these believers were often mistaken for Anabaptists. It may be that they insisted on dropping the “ana” to remove confusion. The famed London Baptist Confession further clarified the difference with the subtitle: “commonly but falsly (unjustly) called Anabaptists.” [sic]

Some of the most godly, brilliant, Christian leaders were Baptists. Benjamin Keach, the Father of English Hymnody, preached and suffered under the Baptist banner. John Leland profoundly influenced James Madison to add a “Bill of Rights” to our constitution thereby providing religious liberty for all Americans. John Gill, theologian par excellence, wrote prolifically defending the Baptist dogma. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, recognized by all as the Prince of Preachers was a committed Baptist.

While some say that the name “Baptist” has seen its last days, a working knowledge of the historical connection should cause one to appreciate the name and the men connected with it.

The theological identity of Baptists Baptists trace their roots back to the separatists in England. The Church of England restricted believers in at least two ways. She restricted how the believers were to worship. She also restricted what the believers were to teach. This was primarily accomplished by imposing a book of worship. As believers studied the scriptures, they recognized that the national Church restricted them from fully worshiping God in the way the NT prescribed. Essentially there were at least seven doctrinal truths these believers recognized and practiced that distinguished them from the Church of England and other religious groups.

In 1689, pastors and leaders representing seven Baptist churches in London, England, detailed these doctrines (and many others) in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (LBC). These doctrines are far too cumbersome to deal with in such limited space. Yet a bullet point list should suffice to demonstrate that Baptists have a stellar theological foundation.

• They believe that the Bible is their only authoritative source of faith and practice. LBC 1
• They believe their churches are free from a hierarchical denominational framework. LBC 25.4
• They believe in a regenerate, baptized church membership. LBC 25.6
• They believe that the believer can come before God without an interceding mediator (priesthood of the believer). LBC 21–23
• They believe that the believer has liberty of conscience (soul-liberty). LBC 20
• They practice the ordinances of baptism by immersion and the Lord’s Supper. LBC 27–29
• They believe that “the Bible teaches both personal and ecclesiastical separation.” LBC 31

Those who choose to discard the name should do so only with a clear knowledge that they are choosing to disassociate with the biblical distinctives above.

Why are some dropping the name?

There are various reasons why religious groups are dropping their labels. Some have adopted a different creed, therefore they deem it necessary to adopt a different label. That is the only ethical thing to do. Some former Baptists have disassociated themselves from the above historical and theological moorings. They have rightly dropped the name “Baptist.” Yet, some choose to drop their label and maintain their historical and theological tenants.

Some want to mask their identity. Some believing and unbelieving communities are masking their identities by choosing vague, obtuse labels. In the NT, we find that names were important because they identified the beliefs of certain groups. They were positive identifications. Today we find that many religious groups are choosing the vague “Community,” “Bible,” and “Christian” labels. There are many with those labels who teach and practice Scripture faithfully. Many would call themselves “Baptist” or “Baptistic.” However, there are many that use the same labels to mask their erroneous (in some cases heretical) teachings. It is this last group I have in mind. The Church of Christ denomination teaches the heresy of the washing away of sins by baptism. This denomination is now labeling itself as the Christian Church. This masking of identity is cause for great concern. They have not changed their doctrine, only their identity.

Some do not want to be mistaken with certain Baptists. There are those who are sincerely embarrassed by the anomalies in the “Baptist camp.” Since the early 1900s, many Baptists have adopted an Arminian theology and other heretical doctrines. This is not something new. Throughout Baptist history many divergent groups used the “Baptist” label.

Those who drop the name “Baptist” will find that there are no perfect names by which to describe themselves. Every label has its own peculiar baggage. Therefore, dropping the name does not fix the problem.

Some desire to be widely accepted. Some are very cynical about the Baptist label. They desire wider acceptance. They believe that removing the Baptist name will attract the unsaved man who has a negative impression of the Baptist name. Maybe this will eradicate one less barrier.

The Christian name had a negative association in the world of early believers. They were accused of all kinds of atrocities. It is also true that some believers were less than Christlike in their lifestyle. However, they did not abandon the Christian label.

Dropping the “Baptist” name to attract the unsaved is problematic for at least two reasons:

• Those who choose to abandon the “Baptist” name to attract the unsaved man will find that dropping the label is not enough. One will have to jettison much more than the name to become acceptable to autonomous man.
• Those who drop the “Baptist” name, yet retain a Baptist ideology are deceiving the unsaved man.

Neither result is acceptable.

Some believe that the name “Baptist” has lost everything it once meant. This may be a problem in the future, but for now, the Baptist name does speak volumes in our pagan society. Baptists are generally known to have strong convictions. They are known to use the Bible as their only real source of authoritative truth.

Still, we need to answer the question: “Will there ever be a time when the name ‘Baptist’ becomes so problematic that it should be replaced by another?” It may happen. When the name “Baptist” has lost its meaning, then it should be replaced. If it is to be replaced, then the new name must clearly identify itself with our belief system. That day has not yet come. The “Baptist” label has not lost all meaning. Though some would disagree, they fail to account for the large contingent of modern-day Baptists that continue to uphold their historical and theological foundations.

Conclusion

There is an identity crisis among some Baptists. Some desire to have a pristine identity while others want an identity that is more user friendly. As this article implies, the crisis is much deeper than the name. At best, there is an ignorance of the historical and theological tenets of the Baptist faith. At worst, there is an underlying cynicism and unwillingness to militantly fight for reformation among Baptists. As we have seen, dropping the name is not the cure. Those on the verge of shedding the Baptist name should reexamine the issue and see if it is only a name or a historical/theological identity they no longer want. For those of us who believe the name carries too much historical/theological freight to abandon should be willing to unashamedly protect their historical connection and theological distinctives.