# Particular Baptist Origins



## JM (Feb 25, 2009)

Interesting...

http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/Particular Baptist Origins.pdf

My THESIS is, those who revived adult baptism by dipping into England in the 1630-1640s era, first received it from the old Waldensian-Anabaptists. This I can demonstrate. I will show there was an unbroken succession connecting the Particular Baptists with the older Waldensian-Anabaptists. The inks in this succession are two men. They did it differently, but either way, the succession is there. The first is John Spilsbury, who accomplished this in the 1630s, and then Richard Blount who did the same, though in a different way, in the early 1640s. These two men laid the baptismal foundation for the Particular Baptist Churches that soon followed. They spread into New England in the late 1630s. From the London area, they reached out into all parts of England in the 1640s, and also went into Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the late 1640s and early 1650s.​


----------



## Hippo (Feb 25, 2009)

I have never been pursuaded that the Waldensians do have ancient origins, it would be nice if they did for all sorts of reasons but the weight of the evidence in my mind points to a much later origin.


----------



## JM (Feb 25, 2009)

Mike, what did you think of the pdf?


----------



## A.J. (Feb 26, 2009)

JM said:


> Interesting...
> 
> http://pbl.oldfaithbaptist.org/Ecclesiology/Particular Baptist Origins.pdf
> 
> My THESIS is, those who revived adult baptism by dipping into England in the 1630-1640s era, first received it from the old Waldensian-Anabaptists. This I can demonstrate. I will show there was an unbroken succession connecting the Particular Baptists with the older Waldensian-Anabaptists. The inks in this succession are two men. They did it differently, but either way, the succession is there. The first is John Spilsbury, who accomplished this in the 1630s, and then Richard Blount who did the same, though in a different way, in the early 1640s. These two men laid the baptismal foundation for the Particular Baptist Churches that soon followed. They spread into New England in the late 1630s. From the London area, they reached out into all parts of England in the 1640s, and also went into Wales, Ireland and Scotland in the late 1640s and early 1650s.​



I did some reading on this months ago, and saw that many Baptists (including Reformed Baptists) strongly disagree with this thesis. Those Baptists who hold the thesis the pdf file is presenting are usually ones who deny any origins the early Baptists had with the Protestant Reformation. In many cases, these Baptists are also "Landmark" Baptists who deny the existence of a universal (invisible) church. 

The books I recommend on the subject are the following:

1) [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Baptist-Successionism-James-Edward-McGoldrick/dp/0810836815]Amazon.com: Baptist Successionism: James Edward McGoldrick: Books[/ame]

2) [ame=http://www.amazon.ca/Edification-Beauty-Practical-Ecclesiology-Particular/dp/1842272519/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1235641352&sr=8-1]Edification And Beauty: The Practical Ecclesiology Of The English Particular Baptists, 1675-1705: James M. Renihan: Amazon.ca: Books[/ame]

Onlines articles like Confessing the Faith of in 1644 and 1689 by Dr. James Renihan, Are Baptists Protestants? by Gerald L. Priest, and The Anabaptists and the Reformation by Christ Good may also be helfpul in answering your question. They all deal with Baptist doctrine and history.

Presbyterian Prof. Samuel Millier has this to say about the subject in the first discourse of his book, Infant Baptism Scriptural and Reasonable:



> It is here also worthy of particular notice, that those pious and far-famed witnesses for the truth, commonly known by the name of the Waldenses, did undoubtedly hold the doctrine of infant baptism, and practice accordingly. In their confessions of faith and other writings, drawn up between the twelfth and sixteenth centuries, and in which they represent their creeds and usages as handed down, from father to son, for several hundred years before the Reformation, they speak on the subject before us so frequently and explicitly, as to preclude all doubt in regard to the fact alleged. The following specimen of their language will satisfy every reasonable inquirer.
> 
> "Baptism," say they, is administered in a full congregation of the faithful, to the end that he that is received into the church may be reputed and held of all as a Christian brother, and that all the congregation may pray for him that he may be a Christian in heart, as he is outwardly esteemed to be a Christian. _And for this cause it is that we present our children in baptism_, which ought to be done by those to whom the children are most nearly related, such as their parents, or those to whom God has given this charity."
> 
> ...


----------



## JM (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks Albert.


----------



## KMK (Feb 26, 2009)

I would add Sam Waldron to the list of of those RBs who disagree with the premise. I cannot remember the title of his book on Particular Baptist history, however. I will look it up when I get home.


----------



## JM (Feb 26, 2009)

That's ok Ken, I've read enough from both sides...


----------



## A.J. (Feb 28, 2009)

KMK said:


> I would add Sam Waldron to the list of of those RBs who disagree with the premise. I cannot remember the title of his book on Particular Baptist history, however. I will look it up when I get home.



The name of the Dr. Waldron's booklet is _Reformed Baptist Roots in America_.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 28, 2009)

JM said:


> Mike, what did you think of the pdf?



I have not read it in detail but I feel that it may have two main weaknesses.

Firstly it is usually reliant on secondary rather than primary sources, which really limits its use as anything other than as a document to provoke thought rather than to reach conclusions.

Secondly I am really not convinced by the logic of the whole excercise. If the links were clearly established then fair enough but the links are all very tenuous and appear to be attempting some kind of apostolic succession equivilency.

All protestants face certain problems in that as all our doctrine should be apostolic in origin therefore novelty is not good, the key point is the apostolic origin not a historic continuation.


----------



## A.J. (Mar 2, 2009)

Ken,

Correction to my previous post. The title is not Reformed Baptist Roots in America but _Baptist Roots in America: The Historical Background of Reformed Baptists in America_. I haven't seen the book for a long time, and I was reminded of my mistake just this morning. 

J.M.,

Here are two good articles on Baptist history (which disagree with or question the thesis of the pdf file).

Baptists: Their Historical Relation to the Protestant Reformation And the Roman Catholic Church by Fred G. Zaspel

A Primer on Baptist History: The True Baptist Trail by Chris Traffanstedt


----------

