Category Archives: Protestantism

Jerry & Jimmy: History Repeats Itself

By John D. Chitty on | 4 Comments

Jerome’s fourth century Latin Vulgate was enforced by the medieval Roman Catholic Church as the only acceptable version to be studied to the exclusion of original language sources. Roman Catholic clergy studied Latin and gained some knowledge of Scripture, but were chiefly schooled in theology with little critique of it in light of Scripture. They accepted tradition and papal decrees as equally legitimate sources of divine revelation intended by God to inform the faith and practice of the Church.
The Renaissance emphasis of “ad fontes” brought original language scholarship into vogue among some Roman Catholic scholars. Comparison of the Latin Vulgate with original language sources led many to criticize the Latin translation, and comparison of medieval church tradition with Scripture and patristic writings also led them to criticize Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. Numerous calls for Reformation were diligently suppressed for centuries until the civil government began to side with the views of the Reformers in the sixteenth century, with an eye on the economic and nationalistic advantages that they saw could result as well.
Generally speaking, the modern fundamentalist proponents of the exclusive use of the King James Version of Holy Scripture repeat this history. Like medieval Roman Catholicism, many modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists similarly discourage or exclude all critical comparison of their favored translation with original language sources. This is inconsistent with the work of the Protestant Reformers who risked and sacrificed so much for years for the right and privilege to translate the original language sources of Scripture into the language of the common man. This rejection of modern translation of even the Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the King James Version leaves the English Bible less readable to the common man, ministers and laity alike, who are not well-versed in reading the often archaic English of a version translated almost four centuries ago.

Modern extreme fundamentalists seem to refuse to learn the lessons of even their own Protestant heritage, and in this way, among others, repeat the mistakes of history. Fundamentalist discouragement of critical thinking and study is a tyranny comparable to that of medieval Roman Catholicism, while exposure to the views of the broader evangelical community in regard to textual critical and translational issues will inevitably prove both enlightening and liberating to the truth-seeking fundamentalist. Words Martin Luther directed toward the tyranny of the medieval Roman Catholic Church apply well to modern Protestant fundamentalist King James Onlyists: ” 90. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy. ” Although King James Onlyists don’t have the civil authority to literally force their followers to abstain from modern biblical scholarship and modern Bible translations, and do, in fact, offer reasons for this expectation, the social pressure exerted in their preaching and personal relationships, likewise “makes Christian people unhappy” who seek to honestly examine for themselves the competing claims of both sides of the English Bible Version debate.
Consider the following passage from William Tyndale: A Biography by David Daniell (copyright 1994 by Yale University). On page 287, Dr. Daniell writes, under the heading of Scripture as a Whole Book:
” . . . that there was a language called Hebrew at all, or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the ordinary population. Religion was in Latin: the Mass was in Latin; all the other services, like baptism, were in Latin; everything the priest did was in Latin; the Psalms in the Mass were in Latin; the Bible-readings in the services, such as they were, were in Latin; the Bible, when visible, was a big Latin volume; some priests, and most laymen, had only a few words of Latin, if that.”
This was the passage that opened my eyes to the way the extreme King James Only movement repeats the history of the medieval Roman Catholic Church in placing obstacles between the laity and the Word of God. Indeed, considering the common discouragement of critical thinking and research among modern fundamentalist King James Onlyists, it is almost as if the fact that there is a language called Hebrew at all (or Greek, for that matter), or that it had any connection whatsoever with the Bible, would have been news to most of the followers of King James Onlyists.
Funny how history repeats itself. From St. Jerome (Jerry) to King James (Jimmy), there is nothing new under the sun.
Illustration of Tyndale by www.reformationart.com
Posted in: Baptist, Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, King James Version, Theological Issues, Thinking About Church History

The Old King James!

By John D. Chitty on | 13 Comments
Here’s a little ditty I came up with about 12 or 13 years ago, back when I was a flaming King James Onlyist who was currently reading through Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions for the second time straight. Now, for those of you who don’t know, that’s unusual for me. I’m a slow reader, but I found the steam to plow through almost 700 pages of mediocre writing and even worse scholarship twice in a row! Truly, New Age Bible Versions was, I repeat was, one of the landmark (no pun intended) experiences in my theological journey. Of course, my first wife had just left me at the time, so I guess that’s where I found all the free time.
There’s another product from that little “sabbatical” of sorts related to my zeal for the Old King James that I intend to share with you one day, but for now, I’ll introduce you to one of my masterpieces. The song, “The Old King James,” is written to the tune of a song featured in the movie which is my namesake, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. The original song is entitled, “Me ol’ Bamboo.” It was an entertaining song and (dare I say it? There are Baptists reading this!) dance routine featuring Dick Van Dyke, portraying inventor Caractacus Potts, who is hiding out from a hostile pursuer whom he’d just victimized at the fair with one of his lame-brain inventions.
This period of “divorce recovery” was early in my membership at my previous church, as well. At that period of my life, I was a subscriber to Peter Ruckman’s “Bible Believer’s Bulletin,” and an avid reader of his books, so when I found out that this new church I was considering went to camp every year on the week when the camp director welcomed Ruckman to preach, I signed up without any more ado! One summer, after I wrote this song, I even had the privilege of forming a quartet and performing this song in the presence of the man himself–The king of the King James Onlyists! The speed-readin’ German with the mouth that puts Luther to shame! The one, the ONLY (God is gracious!), Dr. Peter S. Ruckman!!! I didn’t have the heart to look behind me on the platform where he sat after we sang our song, but my good friend with the guitar said Ruckman was slapping his knee and cracking up.
After the good Doctor ended his sermon, and the chapel service concluded, a young lady representing one of the youth groups in attendance approached me for a copy of the song so that they may edify themselves in their faith in “The Bible God uses and Satan hates” back home. I hope they’re still enjoying it! And I hope my KJV-Onlyist readers enjoy it as well, and for those of you who are not of that persuasion, I think you may find it likewise serves as quite a parody, if you ‘ve got the stomach for it. So, may I now introduce to you . . .
The Old King James
by John D. Chitty, circa 1994-5
(sung to the tune of “Me ol’ Bamboo,” from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang)
A new king named James Stuart
came to England long ago,
He called a group together
to see how to run the show.
They said, “Let’s make the Bible
to be cherished far and wide!”
In seven years came the Old King James,
we call the Authorized!
Oh!
The Old King James, the Old King James,
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
The Scribes and Pharisees may think
their versions fill the bill,
But nothing else will ever better
manifest his will!
The Bible’s quick and powerful,
and sharper than a sword,
To make a wayward sinner come
and call upon the Lord!
Oh!
The Old King James, the Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
In the word of a king
is the power to win souls!
Any less authority
is likely full of holes!
God said it! So believe it!
Now, you know that it is true:
“For God so loved the world,
he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son to die for you!”
Oh!
The Old King James! The Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign!
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
The Reformation Bible
keeps sound doctrine as it is!
It don’t delete the message
like the Catholic Bible did!
The Authorized King James Bible
is what it claims to be:
The Word that God inspired,
translated and gave to me!
Oh!
The Old King James! The Old King James!
You better-never-bother with the Old King James!
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign,
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
Posted in: Baptist, Captain Headknowledge: The Early Years, Fundamentalism, King James Version, KJVOx, Music for Mind and Heart, Peter Ruckman, Video

The Cambridge Declaration of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals

By John D. Chitty on | 14 Comments

Speaking of the Solas, there are a few bloggers out there wondering, “Who devised the ‘Five Solas of the Reformation’ in the first place?” I’ll direct you to one post, and you can follow the trail of links if you are so inclined.

Furthermore, since I’ve finally put in writing how the historic evangelical distinctive of Sola Scriptura has devolved in the life of many evangelicals, I would now like to not merely “curse the darkness” (if you will–Baptist readers, try not to take this reference too personally or literally) but “light a light.” I affirm the following declaration and believe the essence of its theses is vital to a genuine reformation of contemporary evangelical traditions of every variety.

John D. Chitty



April 20, 1996

Evangelical churches today are increasingly dominated by the spirit of this age rather than by the Spirit of Christ. As evangelicals, we call ourselves to repent of this sin and to recover the historic Christian faith.


In the course of history words change. In our day this has happened to the word “evangelical.” In the past it served as a bond of unity between Christians from a wide diversity of church traditions. Historic evangelicalism was confessional. It embraced the essential truths of Christianity as those were defined by the great ecumenical councils of the church. In addition, evangelicals also shared a common heritage in the “solas” of the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation.

Today the light of the Reformation has been significantly dimmed. The consequence is that the word “evangelical” has become so inclusive as to have lost its meaning. We face the peril of losing the unity it has taken centuries to achieve. Because of this crisis and because of our love of Christ, his gospel and his church, we endeavor to assert anew our commitment to the central truths of the Reformation and of historic evangelicalism. These truths we affirm not because of their role in our traditions, but because we believe that they are central to the Bible.

Sola Scriptura: The Erosion of Authority
Scripture alone is the inerrant rule of the church’s life, but the evangelical church today has separated Scripture from its authoritative function. In practice, the church is guided, far too often, by the culture. Therapeutic technique, marketing strategies, and the beat of the entertainment world often have far more to say about what the church wants, how it functions and what it offers, than does the Word of God. Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of the music. As biblical authority has been abandoned in practice, as its truths have faded from Christian consciousness, and as its doctrines have lost their saliency, the church has been increasingly emptied of its integrity, moral authority and direction.

Rather than adapting Christian faith to satisfy the felt needs of consumers, we must proclaim the law as the only measure of true righteousness and the gospel as the only announcement of saving truth. Biblical truth is indispensable to the church’s understanding, nurture and discipline.

Scripture must take us beyond our perceived needs to our real needs and liberate us from seeing ourselves through the seductive images, cliches, promises and priorities of mass culture. It is only in the light of God’s truth that we understand ourselves aright and see God’s provision for our need. The Bible, therefore, must be taught and preached in the church. Sermons must be expositions of the Bible and its teachings, not expressions of the preacher’s opinions or the ideas of the age. We must settle for nothing less than what God has given.

The work of the Holy Spirit in personal experience cannot be disengaged from Scripture. The Spirit does not speak in ways that are independent of Scripture. Apart from Scripture we would never have known of God’s grace in Christ. The biblical Word, rather than spiritual experience, is the test of truth.

Thesis One: Sola Scriptura

We reaffirm the inerrant Scripture to be the sole source of written divine revelation,which alone can bind the conscience. The Bible alone teaches all that is necessary for our salvation from sin and is the standard by which all Christian behavior must be measured.

We deny that any creed, council or individual may bind a Christian’s conscience, that the Holy Spirit speaks independently of or contrary to what is set forth in the Bible, or that personal spiritual experience can ever be a vehicle of revelation.

Solus Christus: The Erosion of Christ-Centered Faith
As evangelical faith becomes secularized, its interests have been blurred with those of the culture. The result is a loss of absolute values, permissive individualism, and a substitution of wholeness for holiness, recovery for repentance, intuition for truth, feeling for belief, chance for providence, and immediate gratification for enduring hope. Christ and his cross have moved from the center of our vision.

Thesis Two: Solus Christus

We reaffirm that our salvation is accomplished by the mediatorial work of the historical Christ alone. His sinless life and substitutionary atonement alone are sufficient for our justification and reconciliation to the Father.

We deny that the gospel is preached if Christ’s substitutionary work is not declared and faith in Christ and his work is not solicited.

Sola Gratia: The Erosion of The Gospel
Unwarranted confidence in human ability is a product of fallen human nature. This false confidence now fills the evangelical world; from the self-esteem gospel, to the health and wealth gospel, from those who have transformed the gospel into a product to be sold and sinners into consumers who want to buy, to others who treat Christian faith as being true simply because it works. This silences the doctrine of justification regardless of the official commitments of our churches.

God’s grace in Christ is not merely necessary but is the sole efficient cause of salvation. We confess that human beings are born spiritually dead and are incapable even of cooperating with regenerating grace.

Thesis Three: Sola Gratia
We reaffirm that in salvation we are rescued from God’s wrath by his grace alone. It is the supernatural work of the Holy Spirit that brings us to Christ by releasing us from our bondage to sin and raising us from spiritual death to spiritual life.

We deny that salvation is in any sense a human work. Human methods, techniques or strategies by themselves cannot accomplish this transformation. Faith is not produced by our unregenerated human nature.

Sola Fide: The Erosion of The Chief Article
Justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. This is the article by which the church stands or falls. Today this article is often ignored, distorted or sometimes even denied by leaders, scholars and pastors who claim to be evangelical. Although fallen human nature has always recoiled from recognizing its need for Christ’s imputed righteousness, modernity greatly fuels the fires of this discontent with the biblical Gospel. We have allowed this discontent to dictate the nature of our ministry and what it is we are preaching.

Many in the church growth movement believe that sociological understanding of those in the pew is as important to the success of the gospel as is the biblical truth which is proclaimed. As a result, theological convictions are frequently divorced from the work of the ministry. The marketing orientation in many churches takes this even further, erasing the distinction between the biblical Word and the world, robbing Christ’s cross of its offense, and reducing Christian faith to the principles and methods which bring success to secular corporations.

While the theology of the cross may be believed, these movements are actually emptying it of its meaning. There is no gospel except that of Christ’s substitution in our place whereby God imputed to him our sin and imputed to us his righteousness. Because he bore our judgment, we now walk in his grace as those who are forever pardoned, accepted and adopted as God’s children. There is no basis for our acceptance before God except in Christ’s saving work, not in our patriotism, churchly devotion or moral decency. The gospel declares what God has done for us in Christ. It is not about what we can do to reach him.

Thesis Four: Sola Fide
We reaffirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone. In justification Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as the only possible satisfaction of God’s perfect justice.

We deny that justification rests on any merit to be found in us, or upon the grounds of an infusion of Christ’s righteousness in us, or that an institution claiming to be a church that denies or condemns sola fide can be recognized as a legitimate church.

Soli Deo Gloria: The Erosion of God-Centered Worship
Wherever in the church biblical authority has been lost, Christ has been displaced, the gospel has been distorted, or faith has been perverted, it has always been for one reason: our interests have displaced God’s and we are doing his work in our way. The loss of God’s centrality in the life of today’s church is common and lamentable. It is this loss that allows us to transform worship into entertainment, gospel preaching into marketing, believing into technique, being good into feeling good about ourselves, and faithfulness into being successful. As a result, God, Christ and the Bible have come to mean too little to us and rest too inconsequentially upon us.

God does not exist to satisfy human ambitions, cravings, the appetite for consumption, or our own private spiritual interests. We must focus on God in our worship, rather than the satisfaction of our personal needs. God is sovereign in worship; we are not. Our concern must be for God’s kingdom, not our own empires, popularity or success.

Thesis Five: Soli Deo Gloria
We reaffirm that because salvation is of God and has been accomplished by God, it is for God’s glory and that we must glorify him always. We must live our entire lives before the face of God, under the authority of God and for his glory alone.

We deny that we can properly glorify God if our worship is confused with entertainment, if we neglect either Law or Gospel in our preaching, or if self-improvement, self-esteem or self-fulfillment are allowed to become alternatives to the gospel.

A Call To Repentance & Reformation
The faithfulness of the evangelical church in the past contrasts sharply with its unfaithfulness in the present. Earlier in this century, evangelical churches sustained a remarkable missionary endeavor, and built many religious institutions to serve the cause of biblical truth and Christ’s kingdom. That was a time when Christian behavior and expectations were markedly different from those in the culture. Today they often are not. The evangelical world today is losing its biblical fidelity, moral compass and missionary zeal.

We repent of our worldliness. We have been influenced by the “gospels” of our secular culture, which are no gospels. We have weakened the church by our own lack of serious repentance, our blindness to the sins in ourselves which we see so clearly in others, and our inexcusable failure to adequately tell others about God’s saving work in Jesus Christ.

We also earnestly call back erring professing evangelicals who have deviated from God’s Word in the matters discussed in this Declaration. This includes those who declare that there is hope of eternal life apart from explicit faith in Jesus Christ, who claim that those who reject Christ in this life will be annihilated rather than endure the just judgment of God through eternal suffering, or who claim that evangelicals and Roman Catholics are one in Jesus Christ even where the biblical doctrine of justification is not believed.

The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals asks all Christians to give consideration to implementing this Declaration in the church’s worship, ministry, policies, life and evangelism.
For Christ’s sake.
Amen.

Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals Executive Council (1996)
Dr. John Armstrong
The Rev. Alistair Begg
Dr. James M. Boice
Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Dr. John D. Hannah
Dr. Michael S. Horton
Mrs. Rosemary Jensen
Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Dr. Robert M. Norris
Dr. R.C. Sproul
Dr. Gene Edward Veith
Dr. David Wells
Dr. Luder Whitlock
Dr. J.A.O. Preus, III

FOR FURTHER READING, SEE ALSO:
Highlights From The Cambridge Summit Meeting
An Introduction to The Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, by James M. Boice
This declaration may be reproduced without permission. Please credit the source by citing the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.

Posted in: Baptist, Christocentricity, Church History, Evangelicalism, Theological Issues

The Baptist Version of “Sola Scriptura”

By John D. Chitty on | 8 Comments

Under the heading of “Legacy” in the Wikipedia entry on Sola Scriptura, I found this interesting paragraph:
“The conception of sola scriptura has changed over time. In addition to being a method of reforming church authority and tradition, sola scriptura now often implies an additional antithesis between the authority of the individual and authority of the Church. In addition to contesting and reforming traditions negatively attested to in scripture, many Protestants also remove traditions that the Bible doesn’t positively and clearly support. Certainly sola scriptura is applied more liberally today than the original reformers intended.”
This reflects a personal opinion of mine which has developed in my journey from Baptist fundamentalism (for example, see my previous church’s website) to Reformed confessionalism (although I am providentially a member of a fairly traditional, and somewhat Reformed-sympathetic Southern Baptist Church). This opinion of mine goes under the heading of “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura.” Like in the Wikipedia article, as I learned Reformed theology from very non-Baptistic sources, I noticed that what Reformed folks called Sola Scriptura, and how Baptists generally tended to use the phrase Sola Scriptura (or the concept, if not the phrase itself) were two different things. Reformed theology emphasizes that Scripture alone is the only source of divine revelation, correcting the Roman Catholic belief that Scripture and church tradition are equal sources of divine revelation, — and the final authority of all faith and practice, whereas Baptist practice and preaching, while including sentiments parallel to Reformed theology’s emphasis, allowed it to logically dovetail with the Baptist distinctive of Priesthood of All Believers and the distinctive sometimes called “Soul Competency“, “Soul Liberty” or “Liberty of Conscience.”
I basically believe that, whatever is right about the Baptist tradition, it learned from the Reformed tradition; and conversely, that whatever is wrong about the Baptist tradition, it learned from the Anabaptist tradition.
The Anabaptist tradition, if I may speak generally (and I may, because this is my blog!!!), is equated in my mind with the tendency toward individualism, whereas the Reformed tradition is equated in my mind with a sober balance of individualism checked by church authority regulated (ideally) by Sola Scriptura.
The Baptist tradition’s sympathy for some Anabaptistic emphases accounts, for example, for their emphasis on “credo-baptism,” more commonly known as “Believer’s Baptism,” or as I call it “Baptism Of Believers Only By Immersion Only.” While some Baptists believe their historic origins follow a path which emerges out of the Reformation era Anabaptist movement, yet predates it in the form of many of the persecuted heretical groups of the medieval period (Paulicians, Bogomils, Cathars/Albigenses and other similarly scary groups), a Baptist-history theory called Baptist Successionism, the more historically competent recognize that the Baptist tradition finds its historic origin squarely in the seventeenth century English Separatist movement, which happens to be a Reformed tradition! First objecting to the baptism of the infant children of believers on account of “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” they began sprinkling, or pouring water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on professing believers only. This practice is based on their inability to recognize the association between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament water baptism because there is no explicit command to baptize the children of believers (and they either skip over, or misinterpret Colossians 2:11-12, which is a New Testament verse associating circumcision with water baptism).
In short, to abruptly conclude, I believe that as the Baptist tradition followed the example of the Anabaptist tradition toward a more individualistic emphasis, they took a step away from the solid foundation of the Reformed tradition. This is how I account for what I call “The Baptist Version of Sola Scriptura” and I believe in this area and others, Baptists are in need of returning to their Reformed roots. For assistance in this endeavor, consult the following websites:
Reformata, Semper Reformanda (“Reformed, Always Reforming”)
Posted in: Baptist, Church History

Alistair Begg Shows ‘Em How It’s Done

By John D. Chitty on | Leave a comment

Go straight to Reforming Baptist and link to a local news interview featuring Alistair Begg answering all the hot potato questions that have gotten other megachurch pastors in trouble with their own people. Way to go, Pastor Begg!

Posted in: Biblical Commentary, Evangelicalism

Baptist Successionism

By John D. Chitty on | 15 Comments

I found the following review on the Founders website last year sometime, and after reading the book, found it to be one of those milestones that have liberated me from an error in which I was raised. Thought I’d direct all of you to it . . .

Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History
American Theological Library Association Monograph Series,
by James Edward McGoldrick,
Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1994, 181 pp. $27.50

reviewed by Terry Chrisope
For anyone who has felt the attraction of Baptist successionism (“Landmarkism” in popular terminology), James McGoldrick has provided half the antidote. In Baptist Successionism, he demonstrates that this peculiar but popular interpretation of ecclesiastical history is historically untenable. It may be said at the outset that he does so in absolutely convincing fashion.
McGoldrick acknowledges (p. 2) that he once held the successionist theory, which claims that there has been an unbroken line or succession of Baptist (or at least baptistic) churches from New Testament times down to the present era. This understanding of church history was popularized in the United States by J. R. Graves in the mid-nineteenth century and especially by J. M. Carroll’s booklet, The Trail of Blood, published in 1931. Baptist successionism, or Landmarkism, also typically incorporates a denial of any concept of the church as the universal body of Christ made up of all Christian believers, and a rejection of all other (nonbaptist) church bodies as genuine churches.
McGoldrick’s method is first to define in terms of theology and practice what it means to be Baptist, then to examine the historical groups down through the centuries that have been claimed by Baptist successionists. he gives particular attention to those sects which are mentioned as Baptist forebears in The Trail of Blood. McGoldrick is to be commended for not contenting himself with the pronouncements of later historians but instead has sought out the primary sources which describe the beliefs and practices of the groups he examines. He carefully subjects these documentary sources to critical evaluation regarding their reliability.
To cite McGoldrick’s conclusions is to call the roll of the heroes of Baptist successionism, but in each case the claims made for them by successionists are found to be unsubstantiated: the evidence shows that the Montanists and Novatians were schismatic Catholics, not Baptists; St. Patrick operated under the auspices of the bishop of Rome and did not adhere to the Baptist conception of church, sacraments or ministry; the Paulicians were not Baptists but separatists from Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, they were anti-Trinitarian, and held an adoptionist Christology; the Bogomils were an extension of a dualistic strain of Paulicianism whose theology was not even Christian, much less Baptist; there is no positive evidence that Peter de Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, or Arnold of Brescia or their followers were Baptists; the Albigenses inherited the extreme dualism of the Bogomils and “held almost nothing in common with modern Baptists” (p. 67); and the medieval Waldenses were similar to the Roman Catholic order of Franciscans, while the later Waldenses were more akin to Presbyterians and Methodists than Baptists. Although the Anabaptist of the sixteenth century might seem on superficial consideration to be genuine ancestors of the Baptists, McGoldrick demonstrates that they held different views than Baptists on the doctrines of revelation, Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology, and that there are no real genetic links between the Anabaptists of the continent and the Baptists of England.
Whence the Baptist, then? McGoldrick argues that the main stream of Baptist life was an outgrowth of the Calvinistic Puritan movement in England, where churches of recognizably Baptist persuasion and practice (gathered church, believer’s baptism, and baptism by immersion) emerged in the 1630’s and 1640’s. he shows that these churches were one with their Presbyterian and Congregational brethren in the Calvinistic theology which they shared, even calling themselves Protestant and disavowing any connection with the Anabaptists. If this is the true origin of Baptists, then there is no possibility of a succession of Baptist churches from apostolic times. The Landmark doctrine is, in McGoldrick’s words, “a phenomenon of relatively recent origin” (p. 145), having emerged in the nineteenth century and been popularized by J. R. Graves and J. M. Pendelton.
In view of the paucity of scholarly works by competent historians arguing against Baptist successionism, McGoldrick’s book must be regarded as an important contribution. His conclusions are sound, his handling of the evidence sure, and his tone irenic but firm.
The other half of the case against Baptist successionism would be a theological argument based on careful exegesis of relevant New Testament passages–such as 1 Corinthians 12:13 and the Epistle to the Ephesians–but that would be the subject of a different book. As for this book, it is difficult to see how the historical argument could be any better presented than has been done by James McGoldrick.
So, having read the above review, who can explain to me the following overused quote of Spurgeon which appears to have him favoring the views of Baptist Successionism?
” We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men.”

—Charles H. Spurgeon
Posted in: Baptist, Church History, Theological Issues