# True origins of the Baptist movement



## Founded on the Rock (Sep 13, 2006)

I have heard many on the board assert that believers baptism is a result of holding to some form of dispensationalism (regardless if some of our Reformed Baptists brother hold to a form of Covenantal theology). The idea seems to be that credo-baptism finds its origins in dispensationalism. That cannot be the case though since dispensationalism came way after tha anabaptist movement.

I understand that all baptists hold to some of the dispensational teachings but it is not always neccesary for a baptists to be dispensational. What are the real reasons that the anabaptists disagreed with the rest of the Church?


----------



## tewilder (Sep 13, 2006)

John Nelson Darby was not a credo-baptist. The adoption of dispensationalism by baptists came about the same time as its adoption by Presbyterians (who were key in spreading it in the USA) and by Episcopalians (such as Scofield).


----------



## Founded on the Rock (Sep 13, 2006)

So why the argument that all baptists are dispensationalists when that is not truly the case?


----------



## Philip A (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Founded on the Rock_
> So why the argument that all baptists are dispensationalists when that is not truly the case?



1. Because credobaptism and dispensationalism are both the default position of modern American evangelicalism, so with 9 out of 10 baptists, you'll find their view of baptism grounded on dispensational presuppositions.

2. Both credobaptists and dispensationalists hold to similar views of the interrelationship between testaments, albeit for somewhat different reasons. Thus, because both hold to a greater degree of discontinuity than the Reformed, baptists often look and sound to them like dispensationalists.

3. It's a great propaganda tool (guilt by association), because many who call themselves Reformed Baptists are opposed to the eschatological and ecclesiological excesses of dispensationalism.

4. At the end of the day, there are a number of hermeneutical and theological similarities between the two.


----------



## blhowes (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> The adoption of dispensationalism by baptists came about the same time as its adoption by Presbyterians (who were key in spreading it in the USA) and by Episcopalians (such as Scofield).


You've heard it said there's no such thing as a dumb question? Well, I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule.

For example:

What's the difference between 'your' Presbyterianism and the Presbyterianism that adopted dispensationalism?

(my knowledge of Presbyterianism is pretty much limited to what I've learned on this board. With that limited knowledge, its hard to see how someone could hold to both the Presbyterian and dispensational way of looking at the scriptures)


----------



## tewilder (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> What's the difference between 'your' Presbyterianism and the Presbyterianism that adopted dispensationalism?



My Presbyterianism is confessional, and their Presbyterianism was denominational.

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by tewilder]

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by tewilder]

[Edited on 9-13-2006 by tewilder]


----------



## blhowes (Sep 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> My Presbyterianism is confessional, and their Presbyterianism was denominational.


That makes sense. Thanks.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 13, 2006)

Brandon, 

You are correct to to say that it is not accurate to say that "believers baptism is a result of holding to some form of dispensationalism...." Phillip is correct that there is overlap, but historically, as you say, the Baptist movement pre-dated the rise of dispensationalism. 

Phillip is correct sociologically, however. Many of the 60 million American evangelicals are Baptists and many of them have dispensational leanings. It seems to be the default position of many evangelicals. It will be interesting to see if this holds for the "emergent" generation. To the degree that dispensationalism requires a certain degree of commitment (it's a lot of work to get it all right!) it probably won't. Hard to see folk reading Ryrie one day and lighting candles in front of icons the next, but who knows?

rsc


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 14, 2006)

*Believer\'s Baptism*

Greetings:

The necessary position of Credo-Baptism lends itself to a dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments that is very similar to Dispensationalism. The Sacrament of Baptism, according to them, is New Testament only. But what New Testament doctrine cannot be found in the Old Testament?

Their dichotomy can be turned against them in their practice of Musical Instruments in Worship. Where in the New Testament is there a specific command to use musical instruments? Do they not reach back to passages like Psalm 150 in order to justify their practice?

The question comes to mind: Why is Baptism the *only* doctrine of the Christian church that edits out the entire Old Testament?

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## VictorBravo (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by CalvinandHodges_
> Greetings:
> 
> The necessary position of Credo-Baptism lends itself to a dichotomy between the Old and New Testaments that is very similar to Dispensationalism. The Sacrament of Baptism, according to them, is New Testament only. But what New Testament doctrine cannot be found in the Old Testament?
> ...



I am confused, and I acknowledge it's probably my fault. 

The musical instrument example is beside the point, I know of dispensationalists who absolutely will not use musical instruments for the very reason that it is not commanded in the NT. 

But, how, pray tell, does the doctrine of Baptism edit out the entire Old Testament? Even dispensationalists, at least reasonable ones, acknowledge that Baptism is related to the death of Christ (Rom 6:3-4). And they acknowledge that the death of Christ was symbolized in the OT sacrifices. Certainly the Reformed Baptists understand this. Baptists therefore do not edit out the OT at all, but draw from it an understanding of the sacrament.

But I think I see what you are saying regarding Bpatist's views of the sacrament of Baptism being NT only. If it is a uniting unto the death of Christ, then, of course, it wasn't expressly commanded in the OT because Christ had not yet died. 

But even that view doesn't discount the importance of the covenant or detract from an understanding of the types and shadows of the OT sacraments.

Vic


----------



## Calvibaptist (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by CalvinandHodges_
> ...



Nor have I ever heard non-Baptist CTers claim that baptism was practiced as a sign of the covenant in the Old Testament. They all claim, like Baptists, that baptism replaced the Old Covenant sign of circumcision in the New Testament. The same dichotomy exists in principle.

The difference is that paedo-baptists fail to see that the physical characteristics in the Old Testament (being born Jewish) foreshadow the spiritual characteristics in the New Testament (being born from above). They do so well with the land promises (which Dispensationalists mess up) by mess up on the descendents of Abraham.


----------



## non dignus (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Calvibaptist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by victorbravo_
> ...



Hi Pastor,

As a paedo-baptist I would say perhaps one origin of baptist thought might be the Greek dualism of flesh and spirit. I think it is an overly spiritual interpretation that suddenly excludes Jewish babies from the sign of the covenant after Pentecost. There is no indication that that was the case. Can you imagine a Jewish mother getting the brush-off from a baptizer? "Deny baptism to my covenant child?!" After a couple years, Gentile babies were included in the same way, there was no change. The new covenant nowhere rescinds that covenant status for children.

The Promise entailed that all the _families_ of the earth would be blessed, and indeed we see whole households being called. Peter in Acts 2 said, "_be baptised *everyone of you*"_' and connected that to the Abrahamic promise, "_to you and to your children"_. 'very strong connection there. 

PS The land promise has expanded to the whole earth. Wouldn't the giving of the covenant signs exhibit expansion, and not reduction?

[Edited on 9-14-2006 by non dignus]


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Sep 14, 2006)

*Baptism is only NT*

Greetings:

It appears to me that defining Baptism in the NT as *Believer's only* cannot be sustaind in the OT. Abraham believed God, Gen. 15, and his whole house - including infants - were circumcised, Gen. 17. Thus, the Credo-Baptist is comfortable with the statement, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ," but blanches when it comes to the obvious OT reference, "and your household," Acts 16:15,31.

Thus, the Baptist needs to cut away the OT reference by cutting out the whole of the OT. His insistence on NT paradigms in order to define Baptism is not even a practice of Paul when defining Justification by Faith alone in referring to Abraham, Rom. 4:2,3, and David, Rom. 4:6-9.

Cutting out the OT in order to define Baptism does not seem to me to be very God glorifying.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Philip A (Sep 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by non dignus_
> As a paedo-baptist I would say perhaps one origin of baptist thought might be the Greek dualism of flesh and spirit.





I can only speak for myself for certain, but it definitely was this kind of neo-platonic view of things that was driving my view of continuity, and hence baptism. Most of what I hear from Baptists now seems to be the same kind of thing. You can find this same kind of physical/spiritual dichotomy across the board in the writings of the Anabaptists, Baptists, and Dispensationalists.

As I was wrestling through the baptism issue, I came to the realization that there were two prevailing presuppositions that were driving my argument: this kind of neo-platonic physical/spiritual dualism, and a modern political philosophy of voluntarism and personal freedom. With these things firmly in place, there was not a biblical, theological, or historical argument that could convince me. In other courses of study, however, I came to understand the Reformed view of the goodness of the physical creation, and a greater appreciation of the Means of Grace as really _means_. I also read Nathan O. Hatch's _The Democratization of American Christianity_, which was an earthshaking book that caused me to seriously reconsider how my political and social assumptions were affecting how I thought about theological matters. Then, a little later, I came across a lecture by Dr. Scott Clark, and I was able to see the issue from an fresh perspective. I was done for. One of the last things that I did as a check to make sure before comitting to a switch in theology was read again through Jewett's pro-credobaptist _Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace_, and the two marginal notes that I made most often were "neo-platonism" and "this is nothing but political philosophy".


----------



## Hungus (Sep 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by tewilder_
> John Nelson Darby was not a credo-baptist. The adoption of dispensationalism by baptists came about the same time as its adoption by Presbyterians (who were key in spreading it in the USA) and by Episcopalians (such as Scofield).



Scofield was never an episcopalian, He was originally a Pilgrim, then a Congregationalist and at the end of his life a Presbyterian but never an Episcopalian. As a further note Darby was a Brethren, Louis Sperry Chafer and John Walvoord were Presbyterians.

Finally remember that there are 3 different streams in the origins of Baptists, The anabaptist stream, General Baptist stream and the Particular Baptist stream. Particular Baptists arose from the same group of serperatists that the Puritans came from. While most Puritans eventually headed for the US the Particular baptists stayed in the UK hence the 1st and 2nd LBCs. 

Cromwell supposedly named the general Baptists in a comment to them regarding military service (according to Dr James Bryant)


----------

