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

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.

 

Not meaning any disrespect Pilgrim. But your post makes an excellent case for the existence of "denominations" and all sorts of "so called" churches. Some man decides that he has the authority to start a church, totally disregarding the fact that Jesus said He would start His church, as well as preserve it. He has preserved it through the process of mission work out of existing Baptist churches down through the centuries.

 

For us to say that we can start our own church without the blessing and oversight of His church is to despise the institution he  purchased with His own blood:  Act 20:28 It is not just some ecclesiastical organization, it is in fact the blood bought church of the living God. If you truly seek to please Him as you stated, you will honor the church He built and adhere to the doctrinal teaching of His church and follow the pattern of Scriptural church planting laid out in His Word.

 

This is exactly why there are churches like Church of Christ, Church of God, Community Churches, and any number of other churches with no authority for their existance. They were created by man with no oversight from a true New Testament Church, hence their differing heretical doctrines. They can do and teach whatever they want because there is no oversight, no accountability.

 

Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

 

Of course if you feel led of God to start an assembly in your house as you stated, you should by all means do so, but is it so difficult to then seek the support of an existing Baptist Church as their missionary?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I also think the trail of blood is flawed.

It is a brief history, written in a simple way, that glosses over certain points in the interests of brevity.

I think it is a good starting point, but not a place to rest.

The basic premise of this thread is faulty, as are some of the replies.
To suggest this is not about doctrine is laughable, as the name "baptist" has not always existed.
You MUST follow doctrine for this is the distinguishing factor.

As such, there have been people throughout history who have held to certain distinguishing marks, although they may differ on minor points. And these people have existed independent from either the Catholic Church or the protestants or other fruit of the reformation.

As an aside to this discussion, the matter of authority is a worthy biblical study.
Every church that you can find mentioned in the Bible appears to have been started by one sent out from an existing church.

It appears as though the biblical example is that churches start churches.

I have not found a clear command of such, but the biblical example appears to be thus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a particular name for a church were a key factor the Lord would have given such to us. The first churches we read of in Scripture were known by their location. The church of (at, or in) Ephesus, for example. We learn that in Antioch followers of Christ were first called Christians.

 

When persecution came to the Christians in Jerusalem they scattered, spreading the Gospel, which led to the spread of Christianity and establishment of churches outside Jerusalem. We latter read of evangelistic missions that further spread the Gospel and saw more churches established. All of these, as far as we are told, were known by their location and the fact they were a gathering of believers.

 

Differing names for Christians came about latter and typically out of disputes; some legitimate, some not so much. While some of these newly named churches were false churches, many were Christian but with varying views on certain matters which caused them to separate from one another, giving themselves distinctive names so as to set them apart; often a name based upon their most prominent preacher at the time. Even some of the earliest of those coming together as what would become the Catholic Church were Christians, but their wrong views in various areas and growing willingness to compromise, soon brought about a totally corrupt false church system. This is partly why the RCC has always gone to such lengths to try and claim a direct link to the Apostles and thus to Christ. Unfortunately, some Baptists try to do this as well rather than simply pointing to their biblical stance as proof they are true followers of Christ.

 

The very fact there are dozens of varieties of Baptists should make it clear the name itself isn't what's important. Our particular Baptist branch (IFB) has only been around for a little over a hundred years.

 

Rather than trying to trace a history from the First IFB Church of HOB KnOB Arkansas all the way back to the Apostles, we would use our time much better in preaching and showing acceptance and OBedience to the Word of God. If we are truly living for Christ our example will stand out and stand clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Wretched,
 
You didn't indicate who you were addressing. If it was the last post I made to Bro. Ben, then you should really go back and read it more carefully
 
I never said that we got our doctrine from John the Baptist. I said we got it from Jesus and the Apostles, That is scriptural.
 
I merely pointed out that as far as the name Baptist goes, it was Jesus that named him John the Baptist. That is also Scripture and was simply an OBservation.
 
I also stated very plainly that the "name" Baptist was relatively new time wise as far as the name of a system of belief, or type of church, if you will.. But then went on to show that the doctrines that we hold dear are the same doctrines that were taught in Scripture.
 
My post had absolutely nothing to do with "books". The only "book" I referred to was the Trail of Blood, but that had nothing to do with what I said in my reply here.
 
I never said we were followers of John the Baptist. I don't know where you got all of this out of what I wrote. Try going back and reading it with a little better reading comprehension.


If you think modern Baptist doctrine is organic and is strictly New Testament in origin, then where did we get the "just war" theory? From the Reformers, who got it from the Catholics, who got it erroneously from the Old Testament. Jesus told "Believers" (NOT NATIONS, just to clarify,) to love, bless, and not render evil for evil to our enemies. AnaBaptists, did NOT take up the sword except for some spurious groups that vanished into OBscurity. Those called anabaptist were commited to the teachings of Christ. They did not kill their enemies. Period. You will not find it in the ancient groups of apostolic origins. Zwingli, Luther,Calvin, and their Protestant followers came up with Just War so they would be vindicated in taking up the sword against enemies of the Church/State, which included the anabaptists.

See: The Reformers and their Stepchildren, by Verduin.

P.S. Where did Baptist church buildings get those steeples? Rome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As to the REAL trail being doctrine, you have to make that very open. Many "baptists" did not believe in eternal security as taught in many modern baptist churches. By this I mean unconditional eternal security. This was originally called unconditional eternal election. We got that from? You guessed it, the Reformers.

Yes, I know the New Testament doctrine of sotariology. I understand justification by grace through faith. But that teaching has been uijacked and retooled to tell someone as long as they "said the prayer" they can NEVER go to hell. I heard one popular IFB preacher say, "If Hitler said the prayer as a teen, and meant it, backslid and did all those atrocities, he still went to heaven." Arch heresy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

If a particular name for a church were a key factor the Lord would have given such to us. The first churches we read of in Scripture were known by their location. The church of (at, or in) Ephesus, for example. We learn that in Antioch followers of Christ were first called Christians.

 

When persecution came to the Christians in Jerusalem they scattered, spreading the Gospel, which led to the spread of Christianity and establishment of churches outside Jerusalem. We latter read of evangelistic missions that further spread the Gospel and saw more churches established. All of these, as far as we are told, were known by their location and the fact they were a gathering of believers.

 

Differing names for Christians came about latter and typically out of disputes; some legitimate, some not so much. While some of these newly named churches were false churches, many were Christian but with varying views on certain matters which caused them to separate from one another, giving themselves distinctive names so as to set them apart; often a name based upon their most prominent preacher at the time. Even some of the earliest of those coming together as what would become the Catholic Church were Christians, but their wrong views in various areas and growing willingness to compromise, soon brought about a totally corrupt false church system. This is partly why the RCC has always gone to such lengths to try and claim a direct link to the Apostles and thus to Christ. Unfortunately, some Baptists try to do this as well rather than simply pointing to their biblical stance as proof they are true followers of Christ.

 

The very fact there are dozens of varieties of Baptists should make it clear the name itself isn't what's important. Our particular Baptist branch (IFB) has only been around for a little over a hundred years.

 

Rather than trying to trace a history from the First IFB Church of HOB KnOB Arkansas all the way back to the Apostles, we would use our time much better in preaching and showing acceptance and OBedience to the Word of God. If we are truly living for Christ our example will stand out and stand clear.

 

As I said in another reply, in the beginning there was no need for a specific name for a church because there was only one kind. Now that there are many differening churches and doctrines there is a need to distinguish one from another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

As to the REAL trail being doctrine, you have to make that very open. Many "baptists" did not believe in eternal security as taught in many modern baptist churches. By this I mean unconditional eternal security. This was originally called unconditional eternal election. We got that from? You guessed it, the Reformers.

Yes, I know the New Testament doctrine of sotariology. I understand justification by grace through faith. But that teaching has been uijacked and retooled to tell someone as long as they "said the prayer" they can NEVER go to hell. I heard one popular IFB preacher say, "If Hitler said the prayer as a teen, and meant it, backslid and did all those atrocities, he still went to heaven." Arch heresy!

 

bro Ben,

 

This is totally off topic. It goes without saying that some true churches have deviated from the truth and fallen into apostasy. The proof of this is differing churches and doctrines.

 

You can't possibly trace church history through churches that perverted the "faith once delivered to the saints." You trace it through the churches that have held firm through all the centuries since Jesus instituted His church.

 

There have always been true churches, faithful to the truth given us by Christ and the Apostles in all ages since the churche's founding. How do I know this, is it possible to know this? Yes, because Jesus said when he founded His church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it....he said it and I, for one, believe it.

 

Notice that he did not say that the gates of hell would not attempt to prevail against it, he said that they "would not" prevail against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

If you think modern Baptist doctrine is organic and is strictly New Testament in origin, then where did we get the "just war" theory? From the Reformers, who got it from the Catholics, who got it erroneously from the Old Testament. Jesus told "Believers" (NOT NATIONS, just to clarify,) to love, bless, and not render evil for evil to our enemies. AnaBaptists, did NOT take up the sword except for some spurious groups that vanished into OBscurity. Those called anabaptist were commited to the teachings of Christ. They did not kill their enemies. Period. You will not find it in the ancient groups of apostolic origins. Zwingli, Luther,Calvin, and their Protestant followers came up with Just War so they would be vindicated in taking up the sword against enemies of the Church/State, which included the anabaptists.

See: The Reformers and their Stepchildren, by Verduin.

P.S. Where did Baptist church buildings get those steeples? Rome.

 

Bro Ben,

 

It's hard to follow what you wrote here. I, for one, have never heard of anything called a "just war" and what does this possibly have to do with our subject? Furthermore, "WE" didn't get this from the reformers. "We" meaning the true church. Can you not understand that any who deviated from the plain teaching of Scripture are not true churches?

 

Who ever said that the ana-baptists killed anyone? It's not in anything I wrote or refered to.

 

Excuse me, but New Testament doctrine cannot originate from any place other than the New Testament...that's why it is called New Testament doctrine.

 

Are you deliberately trying to be OBtuse in your statement about Baptist doctrine being "organic"? What in the world does that mean?

 

Baptist doctrine is simple and simple to understand if we simply take Jesus and the Apostles teaching as found in their Scriptural writings.

 

Church building steeples are so far off topic that they don't even deserve a reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As I said in another reply, in the beginning there was no need for a specific name for a church because there was only one kind. Now that there are many differening churches and doctrines there is a need to distinguish one from another.

Unfortunately, we may be at another point in time where we need to change names again for the sake of distinction. IFB churches are increasingly mirroring the SBC churches. While there are still many biblically sound IFB churches in America, there are an ever growing number of compromising, "moderate" and outright liberalistic IFB churches.

 

In previous times, if an IFB church began going in a bad direction they would change their name so as to no longer be identified with those "fundamentalists". That's no longer the case. Many IFB churches turning Left have determined to hold onto the IFB name and thus muddy the waters and taint just what IFB means.

 

Already some of the more conservative IFB churches have added a distinquishing qualifier to their church name; such as Bible Believing Independent Fundamental Baptist, for example. Others have dropped the "Fundamental" from their church name because of bad associations with that term and Westboro Baptist Church, Islamic Fundamentalists, Mormon Fundamentalist, and such, all of which have the term "fundamentalist" attached to them in a bad, even evil manner.

 

What does "Baptist" mean today? Where I live, when I say I'm Baptist people's first response is to assume I'm SBC. That in itself means different things to different folks depending upon whether they have had more dealings with conservative, "moderate" or liberal SBC churches. The same applies beyond that. There are more liberal leaning Baptist churches than conservative. (In another thread someone listed many of these).

 

Godly churches have been formed all around the world and often not by anyone sent from a church, but because of Christians migrating, settling in new areas, and in some cases those doing personal evangelism. Many churches in America have such origins. Many other churches in America began as one thing and later became something else; in some cases going through many transformations over the years. Those churches affirming and abiding by the Word of God are sound because their foundation is in Christ, not in some historical genealogy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

When one gets the notion in his head that only he and those who belong to his group are the especially anointed messengers of Jesus Christ in their head they begin to sound much like a cult.  :hide:

 

Larry, that is unfair and completely unjustified if it was aimed at me personally. I never indicated that I, or "my group" considered ourselves in the manner you described. I am simply advocating for a body of truth held by true churches of Jesus Christ down through the ages.

 

Replies like yours that only seek to "kill the messenger" are not very Christian. I am following New Testament teaching that commands us to, "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."

 

 

I continue to be amazed that on an IFB board, interacting with supposed IFB people that there is so much deviance from "Fundamental."

 

 1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Unfortunately, many IFBs don't even agree as to what are fundamentals. Early on in the IFB formation there were five basic fundamentals. From there the independent aspect kicked in but so long as those fundamentals were agreed upon, there was a measure of fellowship and acceptance. Today many IFB churches have added five more, a dozen, or even more things to their list of "fundamentals". Many of these are ready to wage virtual war upon any other IFB church which disagrees with one of their added fundamentals or doesn't consider them to be fundamentals.

 

It's not anti-IFB to point out or discuss the prOBlems IFB is facing these days. History is clear that no church group ever holds long to what they started out as. The devil works hard, even if it takes a hundred years, to attack and chip away at solid churches. In this fallen world it was only a matter of time before IFBs started having troubles and some began going in bad directions; just as we saw with the SBC (for example) and have seen with other Baptist churches over the course of history.

 

What Pilgrim is referring to is those who have what is basically a Baptist Brider mentality, which says if a church or a Christian didn't stem from us or isn't a part of us, they are not true Christians. That's, in part, an RCC concept, which the Orthodox and Baptist Briders in particular hold to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Unfortunately, many IFBs don't even agree as to what are fundamentals. Early on in the IFB formation there were five basic fundamentals. From there the independent aspect kicked in but so long as those fundamentals were agreed upon, there was a measure of fellowship and acceptance. Today many IFB churches have added five more, a dozen, or even more things to their list of "fundamentals". Many of these are ready to wage virtual war upon any other IFB church which disagrees with one of their added fundamentals or doesn't consider them to be fundamentals.

 

It's not anti-IFB to point out or discuss the prOBlems IFB is facing these days. History is clear that no church group ever holds long to what they started out as. The devil works hard, even if it takes a hundred years, to attack and chip away at solid churches. In this fallen world it was only a matter of time before IFBs started having troubles and some began going in bad directions; just as we saw with the SBC (for example) and have seen with other Baptist churches over the course of history.

 

What Pilgrim is referring to is those who have what is basically a Baptist Brider mentality, which says if a church or a Christian didn't stem from us or isn't a part of us, they are not true Christians. That's, in part, an RCC concept, which the Orthodox and Baptist Briders in particular hold to.

 

Thank you for your input John, it is appreciated. Based on what you outlined I feel the need to say that I was not talking about those that have "added" to what they consider the fundamentals. I was talking about the real fundamantals as given to us by scriptures and to be found within the pages of our Inspired Bible Scripture. anything added, or subtracted is just that, the works of man and therefore not fundamental to the faith once delived to the saints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Unfortunately, we may be at another point in time where we need to change names again for the sake of distinction. IFB churches are increasingly mirroring the SBC churches. While there are still many biblically sound IFB churches in America, there are an ever growing number of compromising, "moderate" and outright liberalistic IFB churches.

 

In previous times, if an IFB church began going in a bad direction they would change their name so as to no longer be identified with those "fundamentalists". That's no longer the case. Many IFB churches turning Left have determined to hold onto the IFB name and thus muddy the waters and taint just what IFB means.

 

Already some of the more conservative IFB churches have added a distinquishing qualifier to their church name; such as Bible Believing Independent Fundamental Baptist, for example. Others have dropped the "Fundamental" from their church name because of bad associations with that term and Westboro Baptist Church, Islamic Fundamentalists, Mormon Fundamentalist, and such, all of which have the term "fundamentalist" attached to them in a bad, even evil manner.

 

Good post John. I agree that the term "fundamental" has taken on some bad intonations simply because of how it is directed in respect to other religions than Baptist. Personally, I have to say that I never heard Independent Baptists described as Fundamental until I left Alaska and joined my church here in California.

 

My first thought on hearing this term was, 'where does it end", meaning the need to keep coming up with different words to try to explain what we are. And your post speaks to that issue where you said, "Bible Believing Independent Fundamental Baptist," Pretty soon we would have to have a name that included an entire discourse like a confession of faith, kinda hard to get it all on one sign huh?

 

To this I also have to ask again, where does it all stop? It's a shame because at one time when you said you were an Independent Baptist, it needed no other justification or explanation. Personally I think the best course of action is to get back to basics. We are Independent Baptists. Perhaps this would turn the course back to others understanding just what we mean when we say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Since we were first called Christians, why I will settle for being called that.  If a longer label is needed: how about Bible Believing Christian.  I can not help it if other's seem to have spoiled the name with their heresies, Christian is what I am.  

 

Acts 26:28-29
 
28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.
 
29 And Paul said, I would to God, that not only thou, but also all that hear me this day, were both almost, and altogether such as I am, except these bonds.
KJV
1 Peter 4:16
 
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.
KJV
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...