Baptist confession of 1611

S

SeventhValley

Guest
It is interesting to see that both Arminianism and Calvinism can be found in various Baptist confessions.

Thomas Helwys founder of the General Baptists wrote A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland in 1611. Recognized by the majority of Baptist scholars as the first English Baptist confession of the faith.

It is Arminian and also allows women Deacons. Soon after the particular Baptists formed a more Calvanistic confession in the Particular Baptist London Confession in 1644.

So both Arminianism and Calvanism have been around in the Baptist church since it's founding.

From The Life
and Writings of Thomas Helwys written by Joe Early

A
Declaration of Faith
of
English People
Remaining at Amsterdam in Holland [1611]
Hebrews 11:6. Without faith it is impossible to please God. (Hebrews 11)
Romans 14:23. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
To All The Humble minded which love the truth in simplicity, Grace and peace.
A Declaration, Etc.
We Believe and Confess
1. That there are THREE which bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and
the SPIRIT; and these THREE are one GOD, in all equality (1 John 5:7; Philippians
2:5, 6). By whom all things are created and preserved, in Heaven and in Earth
(Genesis 1).
2. That this GOD in the beginning created all things of nothing (Genesis 1:1) and
made man of the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7), in his own image, (Genesis 1:27), in
righteousness and true Holiness (Ephesians 4:24). Yet tempted, fell by disobedience
(Genesis 3:1-7). Through whose disobedience, all men sinned (Romans 5:12-19). His
sin being imputed to all; and so death went over all men. [The Life and Writings of
Thomas Helwys, 68]
3. By the promised seed of the woman, JESUS CHRIST, and by his obedience, all are
made righteous (Romans 5:19). All are made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22). His
righteousness being imputed to all.
4. That notwithstanding this, Men are by nature the Children of wrath (Ephesians
2:3). Born in iniquity and conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5). Wise to all evil, but they
have no knowledge of good (Jeremiah 4:22). The natural man perceives not the
things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). And therefore man is not restored
unto his former estate, but that as man, in his estate of innocence, having in himself
all disposition unto good, and no disposition to evil, yet being tempted might yield, or might resist: even so now being fallen, and having all disposition to evil, and no
disposition or will unto any good, yet GOD giving grace, man may receive grace, or
my reject grace according to that saying; (Deuteronomy 30:19). “I call Heaven and
Earth to record. This day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing. Therefore choose life, so that both you and your seed may live.”
5. That before the Foundation of the World GOD Predestinated that all that believe
in him shall-be saved (Ephesians 1:4, 12; Mark 16:16) and all that do not believe will
be damned (Mark 16:16) all which he knew before (Romans 8:29). And this is the
Election and reprobation spoken of in the Scriptures, concerning salvation, and
condemnation, and that GOD has not Predestinated men to be wicked, and so to be
damned, but that men being wicked will be damned, for GOD would have all men
saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Timothy 2:4) and would have no
man to perish, but would have all men come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9) and does
not will the death of him that dies (Ezekiel 18:32). And therefore GOD is the author
of no man’s condemnation, according to the saying of the Prophet (Hosea 13). Your
destruction O Israel is of yourself, but your help is of me.
6. That man is justified only by the righteousness of CHRIST, apprehended by faith
(Romans 3:28. Galatians 2:16) yet faith without works is dead (James 2:17).
7. Men may fall away from the grace of GOD (Hebrews 12:15) and from the truth,
which they have received and acknowledged (Hebrews 10:26) after they [The Life
and Writings of Thomas Helwys, 69] have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made
partakers of the HOLY GHOST, and have tasted of the good word of GOD, and of the
powers of the world to come (Hebrews 6:4, 5). And after they have escaped from the
filthiness of the World, may be tangled again therein and overcome (2 Peter 2:20). A
righteous man may forsake his righteousness and perish (Ezekiel 18:24, 26).
Therefore let no man presume to think that because he has, or once had grace,
therefore he shall always have grace. But let all men have assurance, that if they
continue to the end, they will be saved. Let no man then presume; but let all work
out their salvation with fear and trembling.
8. That JESUS CHRIST, the Son of GOD the second Person, or subsistence in the
Trinity, in the Fullness of time was manifested in the Flesh, being the seed of David,
and of the Israelites, according to the Flesh (Romans 1:3 and Romans 8:5) the Son of
Mary the Virgin, made of her substance, (Galatians 4:4). By the power of the HOLY
GHOST overshadowing her (Luke 1:35) and being thus true Man was like us in all
things, sin only excepted Hebrews (4:15) being one person in two distinct natures,
TRUE GOD, and TRUE MAN.
9. That JESUS CHRIST is Mediator of the New Testament between GOD and Man (1
Timothy 2:5) having all power in Heaven and in Earth given to him. (Matthew
28:18). He is the only KING (Luke 1:33) PREIST (Hebrews 7:24) and PROPHET (Acts 3:22). Of his church, he also being the only Law-giver, has in his TTestament set down
an absolute, and perfect rule of direction, for all persons, at all times, to be observed;
Which no Prince, nor any whosoever, may add to, or diminish from, as they will
avoid the fearful judgments denounced against them that will do so (Revelation
22:18, 19).
10. That the church of CHRIST is a company of faithful people (1 Corinthians 1:2.
Ephesians 1:1), separated from the world by the word and Spirit of GOD (2
Corinthians 6:17) being knit to the LORD, and one to another, by Baptism (1
Corinthians 12:13). Upon their own confession of the faith (Acts 8:37) and sins
(Matthew 3:6).
11. That though in respect of CHRIST, the Church is one (Ephesians 4:4) yet it
consists of diverse particular congregations, even so many as there will be in the
World, every congregation, though they are but two or three, have CHRIST given
them, with all the means of their salvation (Matthew 18:20; [The Life and Writings of
Thomas Helwys, 70] Romans 8:32; 1 Corinthians 3:22). They are the Body of CHRIST
(1 Corinthians 12:27) and a whole Church (1 Corinthians 14:23). And therefore may,
and should, when they come together, to Pray, Prophecy, break bread, and
administer in all the holy ordinances, although as yet they have no Officers, or that
their Officers should be in Prison, sick, or by any other means hindered from the
Church (1 Peter 4:10 and 2:5).
12. As one congregation has CHRIST, so do all (2 Corinthians 10:7). And that the
Word of GOD does not come out from any one, neither to any one congregation in
particular (1 Corinthians 14:36). But to every particular Church, as it does to all the
world (Colossians 1:5, 6). And therefore no church should challenge any prerogative
over any other.
13. That every Church is to receive in all their members by Baptism upon the
Confession of their faith and sins wrought by the preaching of the Gospel, according
to the primitive Institution (Matthew 28:19) and practice (Acts 2:41). And therefore
Churches constituted after any other manner, or of any other persons are not
according to CHRIST’S Testament.
14. That Baptism or washing with Water, is the outward manifestation of dying to
sin, and walking in newness of life (Romans 6:2, 3, 4). And therefore in no way
appertains to infants.
15. The LORDS Supper is the outward manifestation of the Spiritual communion
between CHRIST and the faithful mutually (1 Corinthians 10:16, 17). They are to
declare his death until he comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). 16. That the members of every Church or Congregation should know one another so
that they may perform all the duties of love one towards another both to soul and
body (Matthew 18:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:14; 1 Corinthians 12:25). And especially
the Elders should know the whole flock, whereof the HOLY GHOST has made them
overseers (Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:2, 3). And therefore a Church should not consist of
such a multitude that they cannot have particular knowledge one of another.
17. That Brethren who are impenitent in one sin after the admonition of the Church
are to be excluded from the communion of the Saints [The Life and Writings of
Thomas Helwys, 71] (Matthew 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:4, 13). Therefore the
committing of sin does not cut off any from the Church, but it is the refusing to hear
the Church to reformation.
18. Excommunicants in respect of civil society are not to be avoided (2
Thessalonians 3:15; Matthew 18:17).
19. That every Church should (according to the example of CHRIST’S Disciples and
primitive Churches) upon every first day of the week, being the LORD’S day,
assemble together to pray, Prophecy, praise GOD, and break Bread, and perform all
other parts of Spiritual communion for the worship of GOD, for their own mutual
edification, and the preservation of true Religion and piety in the church (John
20:19; Acts 2:42 and 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). They should not labor in their
callings according to the equity of the moral law, which CHRIST did not come to
abolish, but to fulfill (Exodus 20:8 &c).
20. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are either Elders, who by their
office do especially feed the flock concerning their souls (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2, 3)
or Deacons, Men and Women, who by their office relieve the necessities of the poor
and impotent brethren concerning their bodies (Acts 6:1-4).
21. That these Officers are to be chosen when there are persons qualified according
to the rules in Christ’s Testament, (1 Timothy 3:2-7; Titus 1:6-9; Acts 6:3, 4). By
Election and approbation of that Church or congregation whereof they are members
(Acts 6:3, 4 and 14:23), with Fasting, Prayer, and Laying on of hands (Acts 13:3 and
14:23). And as there is one rule for Elders, therefore there is but one sort of Elders.
22. That the Officers of every Church or congregation are tied by Office only to that
particular congregation where they are chosen (Acts 14:23, and 20:17; Titus 1:5).
Therefore they cannot challenge by office any authorities in any other congregation
whatsoever except they would have an Apostleship.
23. That the scriptures of the Old and New Testament are written for our instruction
(2 Timothy 3:16) and that we should search them for they testify of [The Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys, 72] CHRIST (John 5:39). Therefore they are to be used with all reverence, as containing the Holy Word of GOD, which only is our direction in all things whatsoever.
24. That Magistracy is a Holy ordinance of GOD, that every soul should be subject to
it not for fear only, but for conscience sake. Magistrates are the ministers of GOD for
our wealth, they do bear the sword for naught. They are the ministers of GOD to take
vengeance on them that do evil (Romans 13). It is a fearful sin to speak evil of them
that are in dignity [i.e., authority], and to despise Government (2 Peter 2:10). We
should pay tribute, custom and all other duties. We are to pray for them, for GOD
would have them saved and come to the knowledge of his truth (1 Timothy 2:1, 4).
And therefore they may be members of the Church of CHRIST, retaining their
Magistracy, for no Holy Ordinance of GOD debars any from being a member of
CHRIST’S Church. They bear the sword of GOD, —which sword in all Lawful
administrations is to be defended and supported by the servants of GOD that are
under their Government with their lives and al that they have according to the first
Institution of that Holy Ordinance. And whosoever holds otherwise must hold, (if
they understand themselves) that they are the ministers of the devil, and therefore
not to be prayed for nor approved in any of their administrations, —seeing all things
they do (as punishing offenders and defending their countries, state, and persons by
the sword) is unlawful.
25. That it is Lawful in a just cause for the deciding of strife to take an oath by the
Name of the Lord (Hebrews 6:16; 2 Corinthians 1:23; Philippians 1:8).
26. That the dead shall rise again, and the living being changed in a moment, —
having the same bodies in substance though diverse in qualities (1 Corinthians
15:52 and 38; Job 19:15-28; Luke 24:30).
27. That after the resurrection all men will appear before the judgment seat of
CHRIST to be judged according to their works, that the Godly will enjoy life Eternal
life, the wicked being condemned will be tormented everlastingly in Hell (Matthew
25:46). [The Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys, 73]
 

Chuck70

Newbie
Mar 10, 2013
148
8
Florida
✟361.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Hi seventhvalley,
The confession you have posted states on baptism:

"13. That every Church is to receive in all their members by Baptism upon the Confession of their faith and sins wrought by the preaching of the Gospel, according to the primitive Institution (Matthew 28:19) and practice (Acts 2:41). And therefore Churches constituted after any other manner, or of any other persons are not according to CHRIST’S Testament.
14. That Baptism or washing with Water, is the outward manifestation of dying to sin, and walking in newness of life (Romans 6:2, 3, 4). And therefore in no way appertains to infants."

I would ask where is "immersion" in this confession? It seems to be the confession of one man, not the confession of a fellowship of churches. I cannot accept as a Baptist confession writings that are of one man and it omits that baptism is by immersion. Immersion is a big point being Baptist as it illustrates burial, which is missing in this document you posted. The 1644 First London Confession is the first to emphasize baptism is immersion.

Chuck
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0
S

SeventhValley

Guest
You do not have to like it, it is a part of history no more no less. Specifying immersion seems legalistic to me(although immersion due to the symbolism is the way it should be done in my opinion if possible but someone on a hospital bed could be baptized by pouring if need be). It is the first Baptist confession approved by the General Baptists the oldest Baptist denomination. The 1644 confession was for the Calvinistic Particular Baptists. Baptists particulars(Arminianism, Calvinism,Molinism,Fundamentalism, Amillennial, Premillennial,Postmillennial) change church by church since we have and do not need or want a central authority.

Also Thomas Hewlett was the main originator of the Baptist idea that church and the state be kept separate in matters of law, so that individuals might have a freedom of religious conscience.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Chuck70

Newbie
Mar 10, 2013
148
8
Florida
✟361.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
SeventhValley, I do not know why when I try to quote a sentence you wrote by using "Quote", it comes up in the text window different. I read from your reply:

"Specifying immersion seems legalistic to me." with a period, no further text.

I will quote from the New Hiscox Guide for Baptist Churches, 1995 -

"1644 London Confession of 1644. This was a confession influenced by Calvinism and especially emphasized religious liberty and baptism by immersion, which became Baptist points of identity. Organization of the Association of London Particular Baptists." page 216

The stream of confessions 1644, 1646, 1689, 1742, 1833; became so prominent as the Baptist expressions of faith that they came to define "Baptists". When there were variations from this standard understanding, a modifier was found: General Baptists, Freewill Baptists, Primitive Baptists, 7-day Baptists, Independent-Fundamental-Premil Baptists. You are right, I do not have to believe the 1611 confession was a Baptist confession and I do not. ;) Maybe if you had labeled it the 1611 Anabaptist Confession, or the 1611 Arminian Anabaptist Confession, I'd not have a disagreement. :D

Chuck
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

Striver

"There is still hope."
Feb 27, 2004
225
34
South Carolina
✟24,794.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Classical Arminianism, which it would seem would be more in line with both Helwys and the majority of Baptists, is not all that far from Calvinistic theology, as it acknowledges total depravity and total inability. However, cultural trends and misinformation from the Calvinist and Reformed side has lead to an association of Arminianism with something much more akin to semi-Pelagianism. This is very unfortunate, but what is even more unfortunate is many modern Baptists indeed subscribe to a true form of semi-Pelagianism that diverges from both Classical Arminianism and Calvinism.

In my (amateur) survey of Baptist history, it would seem as though Baptist leadership trended towards the Particular (Calvinist) variety, while the laity generally trended towards the General (Arminian) variety. The Baptist fold is unique in that it has truly always balanced the two soteriological sides, more or less, whereas other denominations tended to go fully one way or the other.

I do not mean any disrespect, but considering the 1611 to be entirely Anabaptist or not Baptist is a bit condescending. It's accepted as a Baptist confession historically, and IMHO it's not true to the Baptist history and ethos to not include it and its author in the Baptist fold. He may have veered toward certain Anabaptist beliefs, but even your own views you hold to a distant descendant of Anabaptist belief in the separation of church and state.

Essentially, the Baptists moderated some of the Anabaptist views, such as the concept of government/politics being separated out from the church contrary to the views of the Reformers like Luther and Calvin who saw a much more involved role for the state.

As far as immersion being legalistic - I think you must view that from the lens of immersion being a central tenet of what it means to be a Baptist. It was a definite statement against what others were doing in juxtaposition.
 
Upvote 0

Chuck70

Newbie
Mar 10, 2013
148
8
Florida
✟361.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
Striver, I must disagree with your statement on Classical Arminianism as not far from the doctrines of free grace. On total depravity and total inability, it is double talk. I quote from the Wikipedia on Classical Arminianism:

"Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace."

contrasted with this:

"Man has free will to respond or resist: Free will is limited by God's sovereignty, but God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith, simultaneously allowing all men to resist."

The will is either free or it is bound by the sinful nature of man. You can't state it both ways such as the above. I repeat, I see no way to call a confession of one man a Baptist confession if it does not teach baptism by immersion! You say it is condescending, but I ask you, where do you find a Baptist who does not teach immersion?

I keep having problems about a reply containing links and I do not have links.

Chuck
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM
Upvote 0

Striver

"There is still hope."
Feb 27, 2004
225
34
South Carolina
✟24,794.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
The will is either free or it is bound by the sinful nature of man. You can't state it both ways such as the above.

In the interest of not taking this thread too far from the OP, and turning the discussion towards a soteriological one, the second quote should clearly be tempered by the first. Examine the second quote a little more closely. God's sovereignty allows all men the choice to accept the Gospel of Jesus through faith... John Wesley would later call this notion prevenient grace. Call it what you want, but Arminius clearly acknowledges that it's God's ultimate decision to enable us. It diverges only slightly from Calvinism in the way the enabling is carried out (which distinguishes the Ordo salutis from the Reformed and Calvinist version).

As far as calling it the doctrines of free grace, please refrain, as that's one of the typical tactics Calvinists employ to slight the opponent. The implication being, of course, that the alternative is not free. That's clearly never said by Arminius anywhere, and I'd challenge you to generate a quote that unequivocally states this by Arminius.

Obviously, to some degree, historical Baptists would bear me out on the assertion that the two are not as far apart as it would seem, as I can point to the Baptist tradition where the two have coexisted for a couple centuries now.

I repeat, I see no way to call a confession of one man a Baptist confession if it does not teach baptism by immersion! You say it is condescending, but I ask you, where do you find a Baptist who does not teach immersion?

I am not sure if you misread me, but that is my assertion as well. It's not legalistic to make this assertion precisely because this is a hallmark of being a Baptist.

The condescending remark was directed towards the notion that Helwys wasn't a Baptist. His place in Baptist history is already generally accepted, so of course he is a Baptist. To change this would be historical revisionism. :)
 
Upvote 0

JM

Augsburg Catholic
Site Supporter
Jun 26, 2004
17,361
3,628
Canada
✟748,024.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Others
Hope this helps.

BHHS -- Baptist Beginnings
At first, English Baptists baptized by sprinkling or pouring. Immersion came a few years later. Some of the General Baptists may have immersed as early as 1614, but if so it was not yet customary. Many historians do not recognize them as Baptists before immersion.

By 1640, there were at least two Particular Baptist churches, and both became convinced that baptism should be by immersion. Old church records state:
1640. 3rd Mo: The Church became two by mutuall consent just half being with Mr. P. Barebone, & ye other halfe with Mr. H. Jessey. Mr. Richd Blunt with him being convinced of Baptism yt also it ought to be by dipping in ye Body into Ye Water, resembling Burial and riseing again.
Apparently, members of the Barebone congregation reached this conclusion from a study of the New Testament. Immersion was a new practice, for their old records speak of "none having then so practiced it in England to professed Believers." These two congregations reinstituted immersion in different ways. One church sent Richard Blunt to Holland to confer with a group of Mennonites, who practiced immersion. Possibly, he received immersion from them and returned to immerse others of the congregation. The other church simply began to immerse without alluding to historical precedent. "Where there is a beginning," the pastor said, "some must be first." The First London Confession of Particular Baptists, adopted in 1644, says of baptism, "The way and manner of the dispensing of this Ordinance the Scripture holds out to be dipping or plunging the whole body under the water." The General Baptists were probably practicing immersion by 1650, but their first confession specifically calling for baptism by immersion only appeared in 1660.
It seems pouring, sprinkling and immersion were all considered valid forms of Baptism by the early English Baptists with the Particular or Calvinist (free grace, free Gospel preaching ;) ) Baptists eventually practicing immersion only. The General Baptists, of their own free will, decided on immersion only a little while latter.

^_^
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Has anybody even took the time to read the history behind this?

Were not General Baptists, under fire from the "state" church in England (Angelicalism) at the time?

And why should a confession written for General Baptists be the measure for Baptists in America?

For me, the first published Baptist Confession in America, the Phelidelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742 sets the standard for Baptists at the time.

Jezz SeventhValley, are we looking for confesions to support your viewpoint on women deacons again?

It is Arminian and also allows women Deacons.

Tell me right now, is this gonna be another women deacon thread?

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It is also noteworthy to mention that SeventhValley does not mention at all, Thomas Helways co-founder John Smyth.

Helways was Arminian, while Smyth was Calvinist.

Helways was a General Baptist, while Smyth was considered to be Separatist.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I find this somewhat strange considering Smyth joined the Mennonites and his eventual rejection of Original Sin, do you have a source?

As part of my seminary schooling, I took "Southern Baptist Heritage".

This was the book we used:

books


Baptists and the Bible, L. Russ Bush, Tom J. Nettles, Broadman & Holman, 1999

It gives a history of Baptists.

Chapter Two And God Divided the Waters (I think), it says this.

If you give me time, I get off work at 6:53 am, it will take about 30 minutes to drive home, I will find the quote and post it for you.

Fact: John Smyth became disilusioned with the Mennoites in Holland, and separated from them.

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0

Striver

"There is still hope."
Feb 27, 2004
225
34
South Carolina
✟24,794.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Theology of John Smyth

As the 400th anniversary of John Smyth’s baptism approaches, Jason K. Lee has provided twenty-first century Baptists with a thorough and original examination of the theology of the first Baptist Englishman—even while accurately recognizing that Smyth’s Baptist contribution was just a stop on an evolving theological rollercoaster.

Smyth died a Mennonite.

Do burned out Calvinist Mennonites still go to heaven? ;)
 
Upvote 0
S

SeventhValley

Guest
Classical Arminianism, which it would seem would be more in line with both Helwys and the majority of Baptists, is not all that far from Calvinistic theology, as it acknowledges total depravity and total inability. However, cultural trends and misinformation from the Calvinist and Reformed side has lead to an association of Arminianism with something much more akin to semi-Pelagianism. This is very unfortunate, but what is even more unfortunate is many modern Baptists indeed subscribe to a true form of semi-Pelagianism that diverges from both Classical Arminianism and Calvinism.

In my (amateur) survey of Baptist history, it would seem as though Baptist leadership trended towards the Particular (Calvinist) variety, while the laity generally trended towards the General (Arminian) variety. The Baptist fold is unique in that it has truly always balanced the two soteriological sides, more or less, whereas other denominations tended to go fully one way or the other.

I do not mean any disrespect, but considering the 1611 to be entirely Anabaptist or not Baptist is a bit condescending. It's accepted as a Baptist confession historically, and IMHO it's not true to the Baptist history and ethos to not include it and its author in the Baptist fold. He may have veered toward certain Anabaptist beliefs, but even your own views you hold to a distant descendant of Anabaptist belief in the separation of church and state.

Essentially, the Baptists moderated some of the Anabaptist views, such as the concept of government/politics being separated out from the church contrary to the views of the Reformers like Luther and Calvin who saw a much more involved role for the state.

As far as immersion being legalistic - I think you must view that from the lens of immersion being a central tenet of what it means to be a Baptist. It was a definite statement against what others were doing in juxtaposition.


QFT :preach:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
S

SeventhValley

Guest
Has anybody even took the time to read the history behind this?

Were not General Baptists, under fire from the "state" church in England (Angelicalism) at the time?

And why should a confession written for General Baptists be the measure for Baptists in America?

For me, the first published Baptist Confession in America, the Phelidelphia Baptist Association Confession of Faith of 1742 sets the standard for Baptists at the time.

Jezz SeventhValley, are we looking for confesions to support your viewpoint on women deacons again?



Tell me right now, is this gonna be another women deacon thread?

God Bless

Till all are one.


I am not going to beat a dead horse but I am continuing my research on that horse.

Mainly I just wanted to show that their have always been many ways to be Baptist from the beginning of the Baptists.
 
Upvote 0
S

SeventhValley

Guest
It is also noteworthy to mention that SeventhValley does not mention at all, Thomas Helways co-founder John Smyth.

Helways was Arminian, while Smyth was Calvinist.

Helways was a General Baptist, while Smyth was considered to be Separatist.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Very true :thumbsup: similar to the Methodist having both Whitefield and Wesley. It is a shame that the Methodists take too much from Wesley and not enough from Whitefield in the modern church but split. I personally love George Whitefield as well a Wesley.

I think the Baptists have done a good job(but could be better) overall riding the line of acceptance of differing viewpoints. That way their would not be so much animosity between people.
 
Upvote 0
S

SeventhValley

Guest
I like this quote from Calvinist C.H. Spurgeon actually is close to my current view.

The system of truth is not one straight line, but two. No man will ever get a right view of the gospel until he knows how to look at the two lines at once.
I am taught in one book to believe that what I sow I shall reap: I am taught in another place, that “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
I see in one place, God presiding over all in providence; and yet I see, and I cannot help seeing, that man acts as he pleases, and that God has left his actions to his own will, in a great measure.
Now, if I were to declare that man was so free to act, that there was no presidence of God over his actions, I should be driven very near to Atheism; and if, on the other hand, I declare that God so overrules all things, as that man is not free enough to be responsible, I am driven at once into Antinomianism or fatalism.
That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other.
If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other.
These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring.
- Charles Haddon Spurgeon from his sermon “Sovereign Grace and Man’s Responsibility,” originally delivered Sunday morning, August 1, 1858, at the Music Hall, Royal Surrey Gardens, London.
 
Upvote 0

DeaconDean

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον
Jul 19, 2005
22,183
2,677
61
Gastonia N.C. (Piedmont of N.C.)
✟100,334.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I find this somewhat strange considering Smyth joined the Mennonites and his eventual rejection of Original Sin, do you have a source?

Sorry it took me so long to get back, but here you go:

Although the early years of Smyth stand under a cloak of mystery, his journies as a mature adult are quite well documented. He received both the B.A. and M.A. degrees from Christ's College, Cambridge University. The latter degree was earned in 1593. One comtemporary, John Hetherington, testifies that "Master Smyth's bringing up hath not beene so Swineheard and Shepherd like: He is a scholler of no small reading, and well experienced in the Arts". While at Cambridge University, Smyth was a loyal member of the Church of England - of Puritan persuasion - and probably a Calvinist in theology.

Smyth and his Separatist church moved to Amsterdam in 1608 with the full intention of joining Francis Johnson's "Ancient" church (later to be known as the Mennonites) when they arrived there. Johnson's congregation had been in the Netherlands since 1593 and in Amsterdam since 1597. However, there were unforeseen differences between the two congregations, and Smyth refused the merger. He emumerated the differences in a writting emtitled "The Differences of the Churches of the Separation". One of the differences related to worship practice sheds light upon Smyth's view of scripture at this stage of his pilgrimage.

After constituting this new church, Smyth wrote a book in defense of believers baptism. The title of the book is Character of the Beast. Smyth set forth two propositions for defense: (1) that infants are not to be baptized; (2) that anti-christians converted are to be admitted into the true church by baptism...These interpretations were set in the context of a debate between Smyth and Richard Clifton, a Separatist.

Smyth's last confession of faith, entitled "Propositions and Conclusions", was written in an attempt to unite his church with the Mennonite Church of Amsterdam. It contains one hundred articles, ninety-seven of which contain at least one scripture reference. However, he endorses a subjectivity that latter was harmful to General Baptists in England.

Baptists and the Bible, Tom J. Nettles and L. Russ Bush, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tenn., Copyright 1999, Part One: "In the Beginning God", Chapter One, "The Spirit of God Moved Upon the Waters", John Smyth, p. 12-13, 15

God Bless

Till all are one.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
35
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟23,842.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Sorry it took me so long to get back, but here you go:



Baptists and the Bible, Tom J. Nettles and L. Russ Bush, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, Tenn., Copyright 1999, Part One: "In the Beginning God", Chapter One, "The Spirit of God Moved Upon the Waters", John Smyth, p. 12-13, 15

God Bless

Till all are one.

Cool thank you very much.
 
Upvote 0