Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Historians Trace The Earliest Church Labeled "baptist" Back To 1609


beameup

Recommended Posts

  • Administrators

Thank you for your insight into this topic prophet1. I do agree with your post, but also feel that I should point out that while we are both coming to the same conclusions, we are coming to our conclusions from two different directions.

 

While it is true that the OP was attempting to show a connection between Baptist and Protestant/Catholic, which you correctly stated was “history” not doctrine. I think I need to show why I got off to the doctrinal side of this discussion in my last post.

 

For any of us who have studied Baptist history it quickly becomes apparent that we can only trace the actual Baptist name back just so far. It then becomes us to look at the doctrine that was believed and taught by previous groups of Christians to determine which of them held to the Scriptural example set forth in Scripture and taught by the Apostles and the early church.

 

These earlier Christians were, in many cases called Ana-Baptists, a name given to them by their enemies. In examining the doctrines of these diversely named groups we can determine which of them conforms to the scriptural examples. Not all who were labeled Ana-Baptists were sound churches, therefore the need to look to their doctrine.

 

I said all this because it is my firm belief that in all ages since the time that Jesus instituted His Church, there have existed believers organized into Scriptural New testament churches. These have held solidly to the doctrinal examples set forth by Christ and His Apostles and therefore are the “history” that points back in time from our present day to the original Church that Jesus built.

 

So while it is true, as you stated, that we need Scripture to discuss doctrine and history books to discuss history, there comes a time in the search for our roots when we have to merge the two. In this manner we come to an accurate understanding of not only where the name Baptist came from, but how the people called Baptists today trace their heritage through those who came before us and preserved the very same doctrines we hold dear today.

 

Our predecessors held tenaciously to the Scriptural example, refuted heresy in all of its forms and sealed their testimony with their lives in many cases. It is because of these brethren who have gone before that we, in this age, can rest assured that we have “the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 1:3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Administrators

Jim, I don't believe he was referring to you. The post did not quote you and started with a reference to the thread at large. I think he's just throwing some thoughts out there to the whole. :wink

 Thank you Salyan. You know, after I submitted my post to Wretched I had the same thoughts, "what if he was addressing some of the others replies." But alas, I had already summitted my reply. If that was the case I am duly embarrassed and would sincerely offer my apologies. :icon_redface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 
If Baptists are Baptist by doctrine, or as Jim puts it 'doctrine, belief and practice', then why would it matter if someone wanted to call the church they are part of 'protestant' to indicate that some time in the past that church's early members had been under the yoke of catholicism and had come out from it (presumably at great cost to themselves)? It would be in the same vein as folk calling their church 'independent' or 'fundamentalist'. The important thing wouldn't be where they had come from, but what they had become.

 

It would matter only in our endeavor to trace our history. If, in tracing our history, we come to this supposed church, then the doctrinal history would stop there, because before that they were Protestants. This is the mistake that the OP made that led him to believe that Baptists had, at one time come out of the reformation.

 

But not knowing the exact circumstances of their divergence from the Protestant movement we can only guess at best as to whether or not they had become a true New Testament Church. As I said in another post any authority, including church authority has a source. The original source for church authority is Jesus Christ. This authority is preserved down through the ages by one church begetting (or authorizing) another of the same faith and order.
 
Yet the argument on this thread seems to be (and I may have misunderstood it) that one simply can't be a Baptist if one's ancestors or one's particular church's founders were folk who came out of catholicism. If that's true, it means that Baptists are not just Baptist by doctrine, but by lineage also--i.e. you can only be Baptist if your ancestors were Baptist (even if not by name).

 

Again the issue of authority comes into play here. In the illustration you gave above I would have to say that if they just decided to start teaching Baptist doctrine, without  any attempt to seek approval of an existing Baptist church, this would not constitute them as a Baptist church.

 

I keep saying that authority has a source. I am trying to not get too long winded here but perhaps a short illustration is in order. Let's use a police department for an illustration of authority. A police department derives its authority from a government entity such as a city, state or county.

 

Now, I decide I want to start a police department. I go buy uniforms, badges, police cars and am determined to uphold the laws of the land. Does this make what I have created a police department? Of course not. Why? Because I lack proper authority.
 

In another thread, GraceSaved was explaining her dilemma of not being near a Biblically-sound IFB church. The reaction of lots of people on this forum was to say that she should start one with other believers at someone's home, even if it meant that they wouldn't have a Pastor to start with.

 

Now are you saying that if Gracesaved and the other hypothetical believers had been muslims or a catholics before their salvation, then it would be forever impossible for them to group together as a church, no matter their doctrine, beliefs and practice?

 

No, I am not saying this at all. The advice given to Gracesaved was solid advice and was also predicated by saying that this group that have banded together should seek out the approval of an existing Baptist church. This is a good example of how mission churches are eventually established as a separate Independent Church.

 

I hope this helps clarify my stand on this issue without having to write and book to explain it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 

 

 

Seems to me that as independent churches, we derive our authority directly from Jesus Christ, our Head. He is the sole head and authority of each independent church. If a church's doctrine is Baptistic, then they are a Baptist church - whether they have been duly 'authorized' as such by an 'official' Baptist church or not. This idea of 'must be established by a pre-existing church' sounds more like a denominational structure than a Biblical stance. 

That being said, when looking at the practical questions of church-planting, I will agree that in our culture, a new church planted and supported (in finances, personnel, or spirit) by an existing church has a better chance of surviving than a home-church-study without a set pastor. However, that reproducing church is not a requirement in order for the new church to be an 'official Baptist church'.

 

Along those lines, does it matter if a Baptist church calls itself Protestant? If a particular church has in fact developed from Protestant roots, then I suppose the title matches. Overall, though, I don't like Baptists calling themselves Protestants merely because it is (usually) a reflection of a lack of historical knowledge, and this particular bit of misinformation lends itself to people thinking that the Catholic church was the only one in existence before the Reformation. It's worthwhile to nip that bit of false thought in the bud whenever possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As I said in another post any authority, including church authority has a source. The original source for church authority is Jesus Christ. This authority is preserved down through the ages by one church begetting (or authorizing) another of the same faith and order.
 
....I hope this helps clarify my stand on this issue without having to write and book to explain it.


Thanks for taking the time to explain, Jim. It certainly does clarify. My prOBlem was that I absolutely no idea whatsoever about this belief--which I assume is mainstream Baptist--that church authority was necessarily established by lineal progression, i.e. a fellowship of believers can only be a church if they've sought and OBtained approval from another church, and so on and so on. 
 

That prompts  me to ask two questions:

 

1) What happens when a fellowship of believers isn't able to make contact with an NT church? I might imagine a scenario whereby some people are shipwrecked on an island, as extreme an example as it is. And does Matt 18:20 still apply to believers that are doing that without the knowledge/approval of another church?

 

2) How does any given church know for sure that it is a 'proper' NT church? And if the answer to that is by their fruit, where does the necessity for a proper ancestry come into it? Is it that the Holy Spirit won't be with a church that hasn't had the blessing of another (I guess this is the same question as 1)?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

I suppose one can claim to get authority for their church where ever one chooses but as for me I will seek it from Jesus Christ alone.  If I am so led to start an assembly in my home I need not seek sanction from anyone other than God alone.  It is Him I seek to please, not some ecclesiastical organization whatever it's name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jim, I don't believe he was referring to you. The post did not quote you and started with a reference to the thread at large. I think he's just throwing some thoughts out there to the whole. :wink


Prophet, cut it out. The insults are not necessary, neither do they help your case. If you cannot interact within a thread without being rude, kindly do not interact at all. And, for the record? Just because a person does not know some information does not mean they are lazy.

I didn't call anyone lazy.
I spoke a principle.

There is a difference.







Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I didn't call anyone lazy.
I spoke a principle.

There is a difference.

Anishinaabe

 

Equating the unlearned with the lazy is not a principle - it is rude. One may be unlearned because they are lazy, or they may be unlearned because they have not had the tools/time with which to instruct themselves. Either way, you are to treat the other possible contributors to this thread with respect. Capische?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Equating the unlearned with the lazy is not a principle - it is rude. One may be unlearned because they are lazy, or they may be unlearned because they have not had the tools/time with which to instruct themselves. Either way, you are to treat the other possible contributors to this thread with respect. Capische?

When someone is "Ignorant" because they ignore, on purpose, then they "can't join in a historical discussion", due to laziness.

I was in no way implying that any particular person is lazy, I was merely suggesting that those who know that they don't study history, or care for it, may wish to avoid this thread.
This thread's OP requires one to have a knowledge of Baptist History, to engage the false premise, does it not?
If one were to give their opinion, in this discourse, w/o the knowledge, properly gained through study, that one would be at least unwise, and even dishonest.

If we are discussing doctrine, 'all may prophesy'.

Again, I am not speaking to anyone, I'm simply iterating principle.



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wow, now this is the strangest thread yet. Some are fantasizing in the flesh over your adopted title of baptist? Claiming your doctrine came from John the Baptist. Really?

 

No one I have ever known has followed John the Baptist in doctrine. If you do know someone, they are truly confused and/or nuts. Good grief people.

 

Nowhere in the Books of Acts were believers referred to as Baptists. If you are born again, you are a Christian, Bible based and real (not the label the world put on the masses of lost who know the name Jesus).

 

There is no need to blindly grasp at straws like claiming modern IFBs are followers of John the Baptist. You can identify with modern Baptist statements of faith without that nonsense. Put down these filthy merchandizing books about the Word and study the Word only.

 

You want to be a follower of John the Baptist, have at it but don't count yourself Christian also. John pointed to Jesus Christ and said to follow Him.

 

Hello? Exactly! Didn't you read John 1:6-8? What about  Luke 1:76-79? That's exactly what we do! That makes us one in 'mission', does it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 
If Baptists are Baptist by doctrine, or as Jim puts it 'doctrine, belief and practice', then why would it matter if someone wanted to call the church they are part of 'protestant' to indicate that some time in the past that church's early members had been under the yoke of catholicism and had come out from it (presumably at great cost to themselves)? It would be in the same vein as folk calling their church 'independent' or 'fundamentalist'. The important thing wouldn't be where they had come from, but what they had become.
 
Yet the argument on this thread seems to be (and I may have misunderstood it) that one simply can't be a Baptist if one's ancestors or one's particular church's founders were folk who came out of catholicism. If that's true, it means that Baptists are not just Baptist by doctrine, but by lineage also--i.e. you can only be Baptist if your ancestors were Baptist (even if not by name).
 


In another thread, GraceSaved was explaining her dilemma of not being near a Biblically-sound IFB church. The reaction of lots of people on this forum was to say that she should start one with other believers at someone's home, even if it meant that they wouldn't have a Pastor to start with.

 

Now are you saying that if Gracesaved and the other hypothetical believers had been muslims or a catholics before their salvation, then it would be forever impossible for them to group together as a church, no matter their doctrine, beliefs and practice?

 

I agree.

 

When someone finally learns the truth of the error of their 'religion', are they condemned for ever to be known as 'they were a catholic!' or 'they were a muslim'!

No.

 

If one comes out of false religion and into the true religion of Jesus Christ, they are a saved child of God, no longer connected to what they were before!

 

Saved 'catholics' become saved people. That's all. Their past matters not, it has been wiped away by the blood of the cross!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Seems to me that as independent churches, we derive our authority directly from Jesus Christ, our Head. He is the sole head and authority of each independent church.

Of course Jesus is the head of every Baptist church, there can be no doubting this. But church authority is different from headship. It was to the church that Jesus gave the comission to go into all the world. Therefore the church has its authority derived specifically from The Lord. It is imperative to understand that The Great Commission was given to the church in church capacity, not to individuals in individual capacity.

 

 If a church's doctrine is Baptistic, then they are a Baptist church - whether they have been duly 'authorized' as such by an 'official' Baptist church or not. This idea of 'must be established by a pre-existing church' sounds more like a denominational structure than a Biblical stance.

 

No Salyan, there is no denominational structure stated or implied. An existing church authorizing and supporting a mission church is simply confirming that the new church holds to Scriptural doctrines. Once the new church is established and organized into a New testament church the tie is broken with the sponsoring church. They no longer hold any influence over the new work, but are simply recognised as a sister church. The denominal structure of one church exercising authority over another church is unscriptural.

 

Baptist churches are commanded to reproduce.   Mt 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
 20 Teaching them to OBserve all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

This is not possible for any one church, But by church planting we can OBey this scriptural command of The Lord. Baptizing them and teaching them are church functions and can only be performed by true Baptist churches.

That being said, when looking at the practical questions of church-planting, I will agree that in our culture, a new church planted and supported (in finances, personnel, or spirit) by an existing church has a better chance of surviving than a home-church-study without a set pastor. However, that reproducing church is not a requirement in order for the new church to be an 'official Baptist church'.

 

Along those lines, does it matter if a Baptist church calls itself Protestant? If a particular church has in fact developed from Protestant roots, then I suppose the title matches. Overall, though, I don't like Baptists calling themselves Protestants merely because it is (usually) a reflection of a lack of historical knowledge, and this particular bit of misinformation lends itself to people thinking that the Catholic church was the only one in existence before the Reformation. It's worthwhile to nip that bit of false thought in the bud whenever possible.

 

Does it matter? I maintain that yes, it does matter. As I said to another reply, if you try to trace church history and come to this place you have run into  blank wall. Baptists throughout history have always denied the assertions that they were Protestants. This is where it becomes important to see the validity of mission work. If some group decides to "come out" from a Protestant background, it behooves them to align themselves with with True Baptist churches. Traditionally this is done by seeking the blessing and support of an established Baptist church.

 

It is through true, Scriptural, Baptist churches that the we preserve the original truth given to the church:  Jude 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

 

Here is but one example of Scriptural mission work:  Ac 11:20 And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.
 22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
 23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.

 We see here men who went out from the first church at Jerusalem, made converts and then that church at Jerusalem sent out Barnabus to confirm the new church. This is Scriptural mission work.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hi everybody :)

A couple of issues: Salyan is right in regards to me not addressing anyone in particular unless of course you intimate that you follow John the Baptist in "anything".

 

I am familiar with some of the books you gents keep quoting or referring to as if they were authoritative. I abandoned reading men's slanted views on historical events long ago including baptist history.

Hopefully one day you folks will realize that the gents who wrote these books are, pardon my french, muttenheads just like us who wrote their interpretations of these historical events in their own slanted viewpoints just like all of man's written history. Some with evil motives, some with honorable motives but all wanted their money for their "work".

 

One of you quotes ones man's work as if authoritative and another of you writes about some other muttenhead's work as authoritative. NONE are authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You waste your time trying to be learned in man's interpretation of anything.

 

You want to know history un-slanted, Read your Bible, praying.

 

That is all I am trying to convey here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hi everybody :)

A couple of issues: Salyan is right in regards to me not addressing anyone in particular unless of course you intimate that you follow John the Baptist in "anything".

 

I am familiar with some of the books you gents keep quoting or referring to as if they were authoritative. I abandoned reading men's slanted views on historical events long ago including baptist history.

Hopefully one day you folks will realize that the gents who wrote these books are, pardon my french, muttenheads just like us who wrote their interpretations of these historical events in their own slanted viewpoints just like all of man's written history. Some with evil motives, some with honorable motives but all wanted their money for their "work".

 

One of you quotes ones man's work as if authoritative and another of you writes about some other muttenhead's work as authoritative. NONE are authoritative by any stretch of the imagination.

 

You waste your time trying to be learned in man's interpretation of anything.

 

You want to know history un-slanted, Read your Bible, praying.

 

That is all I am trying to convey here.

 

And as you can see from my posts, I have not quoted anything but the scriptures.

And from your posts, you seem to have one view that just won't let anyone, including scripture, sway you.

 

Once again, the view of the import of scripture is based upon whether one is a Dispensationalist or a Biblicist.

 

Ya just can't have the truth two ways.

Either John preached Jesus as the Christ (Hello? What was the Lamb of God?) or he didn't.

 

"One Lord, one faith...?"

 

Oh, yeah...  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

And as you can see from my posts, I have not quoted anything but the scriptures.

And from your posts, you seem to have one view that just won't let anyone, including scripture, sway you.

 

Once again, the view of the import of scripture is based upon whether one is a Dispensationalist or a Biblicist.

 

Ya just can't have the truth two ways.

Either John preached Jesus as the Christ (Hello? What was the Lamb of God?) or he didn't.

 

"One Lord, one faith...?"

 

Oh, yeah...  :)

 

? and the price of tea in China is......

Seems you are driving down a road in your mind that noone else can see friend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...