Subscribe to this page via e-mail here - Subscribe
0203
Ten-night debate at Pine Street church house in Texarkana, Texas.
The first two propositions were along usual ine. One of the last propositions was unusual. Bro. Chism affirmed "Baptist churches are human instituions, and originated with uninspired men since the personal ministry of Christ and his apostles." Bro. Chism first introduced a statement that no such thing as a "Baptist Church" is mentioned in the Bible, and not even the peculiar doctrines of the Baptists are there, instancing total depravity and Christ as the "very and eternal God," and challenged for proof of Baptist doctrine in the teachings of Christ or his apostles.
He then stated that, since the Baptist Church is not mentioned in the days of Christ or the apostles, we must look elsewhere for its origin. Chism then read: "The first regularly organized Baptist Church of which we possess any account is dated from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth who had been a clergyman in the Church of England." (Benedicts History of the Baptist Edition 1850, p. 304). He then showed that Mr. Smyth had baptized himself and thus started the first Baptist Church.
He further showed that Smyth's baptism was not immersion (Vedder's History of the Baptist, New and illustrated edition, p. 204). Veddere says: "It is also certain that the baptism of Smyth and his followers was an affusion." Also, Whitsell (Question in Baptist History, p. 11) says: "Immersion baptism does not appear to have been practiced or pleaded for by either Smyth or Helwys. Bro. Chism maintained that since the doctrine was not found in the New Testament, nor the Baptist Church mentioned therein, that this was the origin of the Baptist Churches of today, and that they did not adopt immersion till the year 1641, and that they were first called "Baptist Churches" by their own writers about 1644.
To this Mr. Key objected, asserting he was not trying to prove church secession but perpetuity, and trying to make a distinction between the two. He never tried to prove his origin in the New Testament, but maintained that the Baptists had existed under different names along the ages, and so attempted to make out his claim. Challenged, Mr. Key gave the following: "In chronological order: Euchites, Massalians, Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Paterines, Vaudois, Waldenses, Albigenses, Lionists, Beregarians, Pickards, Arnoldists, Petrobrusians, Henricans, Lollards, Wycliffites, Hussites, and German Anabaptists." (Benedict p. 40)
Bro. Chism replied: "Of the first two, the gentleman makes no attempt to identify himself with them, and but little is known of them. So we begin with the first he claims as Baptists - Montanists. Tertullian was one of them. They practiced trine immersion, called themselves "spiritual Christians," and claimed divine inspiration. In their parity they seemed not to have differed from the Catholics". Hence, they were not Baptists. Armitage and Vedder given as proof.
Novations - Their baptism was sprinkling and was also "to wash away his sins." So he could not possibly be a Baptist.
Donatists - Held errors of Catholics, practiced infant baptism and taught "baptismal regeneration".
Paulicians - Called by different names in different parts of the country as here given: "This was the sect known as the manichaens, one of the first forms of heresy and the most persistent of them all, which under various names had endured from the age immediately succeeding the apostles. In the East they were long known as Paulicians, in Italy as the Paterines, in Bulgaria as Bogomiles, in Southern France as Albigensis and in all these places as Cathari." Chism showed their doctrine was not Baptist. They rejected water baptism like the modern Quakers; they declared the Lord's Supper to be the sacrifice of demons and would have none of it; they thought churches were the dwelling place of demons. They called themselves "Christians." They were not Baptists, not evangelic heretics; they had a Pope; and their doctrine was not Baptist.
Waldenses - Pedobaptist - "Stress is laid on the part that in the earliest of their literature they had come down to us the Waldenses are Pedobaptist, or at least do not oppose infant baptism. It is also an unquestioned fact that the later Waldenses - those found in refuge in the valleys of Savoy after the crusade of Simon de Montford in Southern France - are found to be Pedobaptists at the earliest authentic period of their history." This quotation from Mr. Vedder shows that they were not our kind of Baptists; and this is confirmed by Armitage. Dr. Armitage further says (quoting a Catholic): "They frequent our churches, are present at divine services, offer at the altar, confess to a priest, observe the church feasts, and celebrate festivals, reverently bowing their heads, though in the meantime they scoff at all the institutions of the church." These were not modern Baptist.
Anabaptists - Holland and Switzerland did not begin to immerse until 1620.
Berengarians - were Roman Catholics. Berengarius was Archbishop of Rome. He taught heresy and was killed for it (Jones Baptist History). Thus went into wind all of Mr. Key's claims for the Baptist.
Mr. Key tried to make Chism say Benedict said the first Baptist Church was dated from 1607. But Bro. Chism stated that it was not Benedict who said it; that the Baptist churches of England, assembled in a jubilee, were the authors of the statement, and not Benedict. These Baptists knew of no previous Baptist.
Mr. Key then showed that a committee was sent by these to Holland to get immersion from them. But Chism showed that the Holland Baptist had not begun to immerse till 1620. So Key did not better his case at all. Bro. Chism showed they were not Baptist but Anabaptist (rebaptist or baptized again). Thus it was clearly shown that the Baptist Church was started by uninspired men, and that, since the doctrine is not in the Bible, it is a human institution.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
Print
J. W. Chism vs R. B. Key (Missionary Baptist)
April 2, 1925
Texarkana, Texas
(By C. H. Smithson)
April 2, 1925
Texarkana, Texas
(By C. H. Smithson)
Ten-night debate at Pine Street church house in Texarkana, Texas.
The first two propositions were along usual ine. One of the last propositions was unusual. Bro. Chism affirmed "Baptist churches are human instituions, and originated with uninspired men since the personal ministry of Christ and his apostles." Bro. Chism first introduced a statement that no such thing as a "Baptist Church" is mentioned in the Bible, and not even the peculiar doctrines of the Baptists are there, instancing total depravity and Christ as the "very and eternal God," and challenged for proof of Baptist doctrine in the teachings of Christ or his apostles.
He then stated that, since the Baptist Church is not mentioned in the days of Christ or the apostles, we must look elsewhere for its origin. Chism then read: "The first regularly organized Baptist Church of which we possess any account is dated from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth who had been a clergyman in the Church of England." (Benedicts History of the Baptist Edition 1850, p. 304). He then showed that Mr. Smyth had baptized himself and thus started the first Baptist Church.
He further showed that Smyth's baptism was not immersion (Vedder's History of the Baptist, New and illustrated edition, p. 204). Veddere says: "It is also certain that the baptism of Smyth and his followers was an affusion." Also, Whitsell (Question in Baptist History, p. 11) says: "Immersion baptism does not appear to have been practiced or pleaded for by either Smyth or Helwys. Bro. Chism maintained that since the doctrine was not found in the New Testament, nor the Baptist Church mentioned therein, that this was the origin of the Baptist Churches of today, and that they did not adopt immersion till the year 1641, and that they were first called "Baptist Churches" by their own writers about 1644.
To this Mr. Key objected, asserting he was not trying to prove church secession but perpetuity, and trying to make a distinction between the two. He never tried to prove his origin in the New Testament, but maintained that the Baptists had existed under different names along the ages, and so attempted to make out his claim. Challenged, Mr. Key gave the following: "In chronological order: Euchites, Massalians, Montanists, Novatians, Donatists, Paulicians, Paterines, Vaudois, Waldenses, Albigenses, Lionists, Beregarians, Pickards, Arnoldists, Petrobrusians, Henricans, Lollards, Wycliffites, Hussites, and German Anabaptists." (Benedict p. 40)
Bro. Chism replied: "Of the first two, the gentleman makes no attempt to identify himself with them, and but little is known of them. So we begin with the first he claims as Baptists - Montanists. Tertullian was one of them. They practiced trine immersion, called themselves "spiritual Christians," and claimed divine inspiration. In their parity they seemed not to have differed from the Catholics". Hence, they were not Baptists. Armitage and Vedder given as proof.
Novations - Their baptism was sprinkling and was also "to wash away his sins." So he could not possibly be a Baptist.
Donatists - Held errors of Catholics, practiced infant baptism and taught "baptismal regeneration".
Paulicians - Called by different names in different parts of the country as here given: "This was the sect known as the manichaens, one of the first forms of heresy and the most persistent of them all, which under various names had endured from the age immediately succeeding the apostles. In the East they were long known as Paulicians, in Italy as the Paterines, in Bulgaria as Bogomiles, in Southern France as Albigensis and in all these places as Cathari." Chism showed their doctrine was not Baptist. They rejected water baptism like the modern Quakers; they declared the Lord's Supper to be the sacrifice of demons and would have none of it; they thought churches were the dwelling place of demons. They called themselves "Christians." They were not Baptists, not evangelic heretics; they had a Pope; and their doctrine was not Baptist.
Waldenses - Pedobaptist - "Stress is laid on the part that in the earliest of their literature they had come down to us the Waldenses are Pedobaptist, or at least do not oppose infant baptism. It is also an unquestioned fact that the later Waldenses - those found in refuge in the valleys of Savoy after the crusade of Simon de Montford in Southern France - are found to be Pedobaptists at the earliest authentic period of their history." This quotation from Mr. Vedder shows that they were not our kind of Baptists; and this is confirmed by Armitage. Dr. Armitage further says (quoting a Catholic): "They frequent our churches, are present at divine services, offer at the altar, confess to a priest, observe the church feasts, and celebrate festivals, reverently bowing their heads, though in the meantime they scoff at all the institutions of the church." These were not modern Baptist.
Anabaptists - Holland and Switzerland did not begin to immerse until 1620.
Berengarians - were Roman Catholics. Berengarius was Archbishop of Rome. He taught heresy and was killed for it (Jones Baptist History). Thus went into wind all of Mr. Key's claims for the Baptist.
Mr. Key tried to make Chism say Benedict said the first Baptist Church was dated from 1607. But Bro. Chism stated that it was not Benedict who said it; that the Baptist churches of England, assembled in a jubilee, were the authors of the statement, and not Benedict. These Baptists knew of no previous Baptist.
Mr. Key then showed that a committee was sent by these to Holland to get immersion from them. But Chism showed that the Holland Baptist had not begun to immerse till 1620. So Key did not better his case at all. Bro. Chism showed they were not Baptist but Anabaptist (rebaptist or baptized again). Thus it was clearly shown that the Baptist Church was started by uninspired men, and that, since the doctrine is not in the Bible, it is a human institution.
VIEW NEXT REPORT >>
| Powered By |
| TheLordsWay.com |
| Click here to host your own church web site today! |
