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

[John81]

We are saying the same thing. I simply didn't realize I needed to go into such detail for you to understand my meaning.

[DaveW]

In this thread?

Really?

With the muck in this place lately you really do have to be clear.....

[John81]

In this thread?

Really?

With the muck in this place lately you really do have to be clear.....

With certain people, yes I agree, but I figured we prOBably understood what we were talking about. Even so, you are correct, there are some here who will jump on anything to take things in a totally wrong direction. At least a couple of folks have reached the point where it seems they are only here to spread false teachings and twistings of the Word.

[Alimantado]

Just to try to crystallize thinking on one of the topics that's been discussed in this thread, to make it easier for me, here's a hypothetical scenario.
 
Let's say we have an IFB church in the US, one that is doctrinally sound and moreover in faith and practice it is all the things Jim has just spoken of. After a while, the church becomes doctrinally unsound--let's say it begins teaching some heresy--and a number of its members, after a period of prayerfully attempting to steer the church back on course, decide to leave this church. With no other doctinally sound church in the area for them to join, these people decide at least in the short term to gather together at someone's house in order to--as Jim says--glorify God in all that they think, say and do. Let's say that after a short while there are a dozen or so that are meeting and they decide to 'form' or 'become' a church, as it were.
 
I hope folk can see from this hypothetical scenario what kind of real-life situation I'm trying to describe. It isn't a scenario where a church has planted a church.
 
So what are the group to do now? Is it impossible for them now to become a church given that theirs has not been a 'plant' from an existing church? If it's not impossible, is their next task to seek out a true church and gain their blessing to become a church? And would this be a matter or prudence in following a Biblical example, or would it be a necessity to become a church?
 
Appreciate some have answered some of these questions already--noted, thanks. If they want to comment again that's fine, of course, but also seeking others views.
 
And in case any want to write this post off as redundant or 'sophist' or whatever, I'll suggest two ways in which it could be relevant to real life: first is that OBviously a group of believers might find themselves in a similar scenario. Secondly, if a church must get the blessing of another church, an individual seeking a church might want to check that a given church has done that. Or should they?

[John81]

"For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body." Ephesians 5:23

 

If the Lord leads an individual to form a church, or a group of people to form a church, then they are doing well. Many on this board have told folks having difficulty finding a good local church they should start a new church. I don't agree that just anyone who can't find a good church should set forth to start a new church, unless the Lord leads that person (or a group) to do so.

 

Many IFB churches, especially years ago, were once SBC churches; and in some cases other churches. They broke away and formed their own church with no sending church. Many of the IFBs scattered around have similar beginnings of folks leaving a drifting church in order to form their own IFB church.

[Genevanpreacher]

There were some men in the NT preachin' Jesus, and they weren't part of the Disciples that followed Jesus.

The disciples were concerned, but the Lord said to leave them be, anyone who wasn't against them, were for them. [Mark 9:38-40]

 

I came out of an 'unfocused' Independent Baptist Church, where I was the Pastor's 'underling', the next in line you might say, and things got to be so 'conspiratorial' to the degree of 'missing the mark' in evangelism and proper preaching and teaching.

 

It does happen folks.

[Guest]

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.

I'll not only give you a like but I'll add my Amen and reiterate...NO assembly of believers (church) needs the approval, guidance, help, permission, or governance of any other organized body of believers. Jesus Christ and He only approves an assembly (church) and the Holy Spirit is the only guide they need. 

[Genevanpreacher]

Ok, so where do people get it that they need approval of a 'legit' Church?

Is there scripture for it some where?

[DaveW]

Find a church in the Bible that was clearly started by a group of believers deciding to do it alone please.

I understand the difficulties and prOBlems as described by some above, but as far as I can see, in the Bible churches are started by men sent out from other churches with the purpose of starting churches.

There is no single verse but it is throughout the book of acts that we see it. Primarily of course with Paul sent out for precisely that purpose.

Just because people do something, and just because it is hard to something right, does not mean we do the wrong thing.

Let me be clear here - I do not think that a church has to be able to trace their lineage all the way back to Christ to be legitimate. That is an impossible task in any case.
But churches start churches by sending a man out for that purpose.
As far as I can see, no church in the New Testament was started any other way.

We should follow that example.

[ThePilgrim]

I can not show you an example in the New Testament where God chose men to start a church other than Jesus telling sending the apostles to preach.

 

Mark 16:14-20

 

14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.

 

15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

 

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

 

18 .They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

 

19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

 

20 And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

KJV

 

God sent people all through the Old Testament to do His will which included delivering His message.  Consider Jonah's being sent to Nineveh to save the lost there from God's wrath.

Some will say "not the same."  Well I say same enough.  

 

Just as God sent His people in the Old Testament and the New Testament to deliver His message he send His people today.  

 

No, I didn't give you the answer you want and I prOBably can't give you the answer you want but God works His will the way He will, not the way we will it.

Thank God that He does use the simple means and things don't have to be complicated.   1 Cor 1:25-31

 

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

 

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many nOBle, are called:

 

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

 

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

 

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

 

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

KJV

 

I am sure some will say "that is out of context."  Well if that is the case, so be it.  

[Genevanpreacher]

How about one example of a church starting a church?

[Genevanpreacher]

How about this?

 

 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto 

salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Grecian.

For by it the righteousness of God is revealed, from faith to faith: as it is 

written, The just shall live by faith.

 

Sounds to me that salvation is from one believers mouth to another 'believer-2-b', not

a church to church thing. It's like people seem to think they need to go to church to 'get saved'.

 

It's the members of Christ's flock that do the delivering of the gospel to the lost.

So if 'authority' for starting a church 'exists', what is the import? Salvation is by hearing the word of God, you know that ol' 'foolishness'.

For fellow believers to 'gather' and worship God through the preaching and hearing of the word of God, why invent the 'corporation' of one?

It's not a business. 

 

Little off subject, but I think it's OBvious, Paul and Barnabas and others were sent out to confirm the 'truth' in the churches, not start them.

Romans - Jude were 'directions', (mostly), for the believers to follow in their everyday life, in church and at home and in public.

[DaveW]

The second time Paul went out to confirm the churches - not the first time. (And he still started churches)

That they were sent out can not be disputed.
That they then started churches also can not be disputed.
Salvation is a totally different topic. Salvation and church membership are not the same thing.

I have stated what I believe is Biblical example.

Along with that there is the biblical concept of authority in every institution that God has established.

I won't separate over a difference on this aspect, but unless it can be displayed that the Bible records a church started by a group of believers who "just decided to", then I am not changing my view to accommodate "the realities of this world".

This is my view which I have come to through biblical study.
I am entitled to hold to this view because it is mine.
I am forced to hold to this view because I believe it to be biblical.

[Jim_Alaska]

How about one example of a church starting a church?

 

I gave an example of this in the last part of my post #57

[Jim_Alaska]

Ok folks, I admit that I am the "new kid" on the block as far as this forum goes. I am not familiar with all the history that has gone before here. I do not know who the "players" are or what they believe. Even though I may be the new kid here, I am not new in regard to being an Independent Baptist. I have been an Independent Baptist and associated with Independent Baptists for longer than many here have been alive. In all my years as such, I have to say that I have never heard so much dissention between those who claim the name Baptist. The Apostle Paul felt it needful to exhort his deciples to be sure that they all speak the same thing. I see anything but that on this message board.

 

I feel that this thread has run its course. I originally wanted to post to beameup's OBvious error in coming on this board and trying to convince what I thought were like minded believers, that they somehow originated from within the Reformation and that they still held to RCC doctrine. I never would have imagined in my wildest dreams that error such as he put forth could get worse....but I was wrong.

 

We have run the gamut on this thread and I, for one, have said all there is to say on this subject using scripture and sound reasoning to prove we did not come out of the reformation. And to show the truth of our actual historical roots. But you know, once all the arguments have been made through six pages of posts and the thread degenerates to the point of mud slinging, it is time to stop. It not only becomes a waste of time and energy for me, but it ceases to have any positive effect on someone who genuinly does not know about this subject. In other words, it becomes unproductive and ceases to show unity of doctrine among believers.

 

Because of some of my posts I have been accused of being "cult like". Another poster deviated from the subject enough that he actually insinuated that what I was taught was nothing more than "easy to swallow" teaching like that that was taught to children. For supposed bretheren to degenerate our conversation to this point is shameful and in no way showing forth the Love of Christ.

 

If what I have written here sounds harsh to anyone, I am sorry, this is how I see it. I truly wish I could see it otherwise and will, in the future, do my best to abstain from letting a thread that I am involved with get to this point. If I sound discourged, it is because I am, but I will get over it with the Lord's help. Your prayers would be helpful and appreciated.

 

Having said all of that, I will bow out of this thread and hopefully we can all move on to something that is more honoring to our Lord. To those that have responded in opposition to my scripture references and reasoning in this thread I hold no ill feeling, but would like to leave you with one suggestion.

 

If you truly believe in your heart that it is not scriptural or needful for new churchs to be planted by existing New Testement churches, I would suggest that you should back up what you believe by never supporting any mission work and refusing to support any church that does support mission work.

 

God bless you all and may He also help us to work together in unity in the future for His glory.