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

  • Members

Um...John the Baptist, and um...the Apostles had to have been followers of John the Baptist, 

and known his baptism, and um...Jesus Christ himself was baptized by John the Baptist,

sorta making Jesus Christ a Baptist...

 

Following me here?

Kinda a 'no brainer'.

 

And I sorta think that might have been a little before 1609.

 

Beameup? Are you saying then that what I said above is nothing? 

And are you in doubt that the 'real church' exists?

 

Now Brother, and I hope you are, you cannot deny the validity of the scriptures and their value historically on this subject.

What I have said above, [in few words mind you], you cannot deny.

For you to deny that fact, you deny any scripture source for 'what' you call yourself: a Baptist.

 

I hope you might consider God's info from his-story way over the top of any man taught doctrine about 'nOBody really knows which church is correctly the original' junk.

 

College ruins men's minds, when they stick to what they have been taught in 'schoolin' over what the good ol' word of the living God 'hath said'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Beam,

 

You have just made it abundantly clear that you have never studied Baptist history. Might I suggest some real Baptist history books instead of Wiki.

 

You might start with something small and concise like: The Trail Of Blood. Very easy to understand, written by those who have made Baptist church history their life's work. It even has pictures!!!  :coverlaugh:

 

What? Yours has pictures? Oh, wait a minute, you mean the chart? Oh. You were getting me jealous, now not.  :clapping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

Prior to the 1600's there was no group that called themselves "Baptists." There may have been groups "labeled" Baptists because of their form of baptizing, but the group now identified as Baptist came out of the Puritans. When they saw that the Church of England was not going to reform, many pulled completely away. Seeing the more biblical practice of the Dutch, German, and Swiss anabaptists, they took from both schools of thought and produced the Baptist church.

The Trail of Blood has some interesting content, but is Baptist drum beating to rally the troops. Carrol's premise that we came from John the "Baptist," is about as shallow, unscholarly, and historcally inaccurate as the church of Christ's claim to authentcity. Our modern Baptist doctrine is a composite of beliefs that have been formulated over the last 400 or so years. Baptist dctrine is a fine system of beliefs, but does not neccessitate beleving that the Baptist church "as we know it" today, went all the way back to Jerusalem, (to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, equipped with a Donkey ministry to bring in little poor kids.)

I would like to recommend the book, The Pilgrim Church, by E.H. Broadbent. Though an Anglican, he was genuinely converted and noticed the Church of England was NOTHING like the Book of Acts. Being well versed in several languages, traveling extensively, and having access to tons of great documents, he wrote a pretty comprehensive history of church progress through the ages, ending in the early 1920's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Prior to the 1600's there was no group that called themselves "Baptists." There may have been groups "labeled" Baptists because of their form of baptizing, but the group now identified as Baptist came out of the Puritans. When they saw that the Church of England was not going to reform, many pulled completely away. Seeing the more biblical practice of the Dutch, German, and Swiss anabaptists, they took from both schools of thought and produced the Baptist church.

The Trail of Blood has some interesting content, but is Baptist drum beating to rally the troops. Carrol's premise that we came from John the "Baptist," is about as shallow, unscholarly, and historcally inaccurate as the church of Christ's claim to authentcity. Our modern Baptist doctrine is a composite of beliefs that have been formulated over the last 400 or so years. Baptist dctrine is a fine system of beliefs, but does not neccessitate beleving that the Baptist church "as we know it" today, went all the way back to Jerusalem, (to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, equipped with a Donkey ministry to bring in little poor kids.)

I would like to recommend the book, The Pilgrim Church, by E.H. Broadbent. Though an Anglican, he was genuinely converted and noticed the Church of England was NOTHING like the Book of Acts. Being well versed in several languages, traveling extensively, and having access to tons of great documents, he wrote a pretty comprehensive history of church progress through the ages, ending in the early 1920's.

 

I disagree with the highlighted sentence above.

 

The only real accuracy on the truth of the Baptist church from the NT times til now, comes from the scriptures.

 

Man will, and has, corrupted the facts of history, out of using his own

'view' of how he perceives something to have occurred. 

 

God is not in that business.

 

He has recorded John as the Baptist, not because of 'what he did' but 'what he believed'. He believed in God the Father, and his message to 'the people who sat in darkness', that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.

 

That is 'what a Baptist does'.

 

The name is not a magic title, it is a belief that follows the one who introduced our Savior to mankind in order for men to 'see' the salvation of God - Jesus Christ!

It is equivalent to people being called Christian, because they followed Christ.

We are called Baptist because we follow John the Baptist, and his ministry. 

It is a comparison, we could just as well be called Christian church instead.

 

But we aren't.

 

And, I do know there are Baptists that do not believe that we have the same ministry as John, but in my opinion they are 'straining at a gnat' to prove other unscriptural teachings.

 

* I must add, I do not follow 'The Trail of Blood' as my source. It has interesting value, but not strength of facts.

  Also, I need to clarify something - Baptists are Baptists by doctrine, not by the name itself. So yes, there were Baptists down through the centuries that were not known as Baptists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

He has recorded John as the Baptist, not because of 'what he did' but 'what he believed'. He believed in God the Father, and his message to 'the people who sat in darkness', that Jesus was the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world.

He was called the Baptist because that is what the Scriptures say he did.

 

 

Also, I need to clarify something - Baptists are Baptists by doctrine, not by the name itself. So yes, there were Baptists down through the centuries that were not known as Baptists.

You got that part right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

 

 

Any scripture verses for your support? 

You just stated I got it right when I said " Baptists are Baptists by doctrine".

 

John was a Baptist by doctrine also.

 

Read his Daddy's thoughts, lead by the

Holy Ghost, in Luke 1:76-79, and tell me he was sent to baptize 

(as if that makes us Baptists different than any other 'belief')  only.

 

Read John 1:6-8

 

His baptism was not a 'special magic' that we do not have now. It was good ol' regular 'dunkin' in the water' Baptist baptism.

But his baptism was after his preachin', cause the folks didn't get baptized til they got the truth about sin right first!

 

Most so called Baptists that believe John taught a 'cleansing' rather than a 'confession' in baptism should rather use the modern versions of today

that say, in the text about baptism, that it 'gets them forgiveness', of which Baptists have never taught and the scriptures that Baptists have traditionally

used never said in their texts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There were Baptists called Baptists in Holland 100 years before those Reformed Puritans started calling themselves Baptist.

Read "On Plymouthe Plantation".

Read Armitage's "A History of the Baptists"

Two witnesses of the same Baptists in Holland.

So, no, we didn't all come from those Calvinists, sorry.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Bro. Ben,

 

I think it wise to point out that you have come into an ongoing discussion started by member "beameup" that encompassed three threads all at the same time. His OBjective was to prove that baptists came out of the reformation, thus making them protestants. His other OBjectve was to somehow prove that baptists hold to some Roman Catholic doctrine. So then, I understand that you may be a bit handicapped as to what has already taken place in this discussion.

 

I am going to reply to what you wrote below in red text and do it under your text so that my replies clearly indicate what  am addressing.

 

 

 

Prior to the 1600's there was no group that called themselves "Baptists." There may have been groups "labeled" Baptists because of their form of baptizing, but the group now identified as Baptist came out of the Puritans. When they saw that the Church of England was not going to reform, many pulled completely away. Seeing the more biblical practice of the Dutch, German, and Swiss anabaptists, they took from both schools of thought and produced the Baptist church.

 

While it is true that the name Baptist is relatively new in regard to describing a particular kind of church, it is not new when we consider that the name Baptist points more to a specific system of beliefs and doctrines. These are the beliefs and doctrines that were first instituted by Jesus Christ and His Apostles.

 

Jesus instituted His chruch with these words:  Mt. 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." We have in this verse His promise to not only build His church, but to also preserve it. This means that from the time He built it until this present day there has never been a time that the world was without the true church.

 

Your assertion that the baptist Church came out of the Puritan movement would make it a reformed church. A reformed church is one that came out of the Catholic Church during the reformation and is therefore a Protestant church. The Church that Jesus built was in existence 1600 years before the reformation, persevered through it and the persecution of both the Catholic church, as well as the reformers.

 

Baptists today hold to the very same beliefs and doctrines that the first church, under Jesus and His Apostles recorded in our Bible. Scriptural New Testament Churches are started by existing Scriptural New Testament Churches. So saying that some in the Puritan movement left it and adopted the teaching of the ana-baptists only proves that they were not true New Testament churches. Authority has a source, in the case of churches that source is Jesus Christ. Individuals coming out of an OBscure sect and taking on the teaching of Baptists cannot constitute a valid New testament Church; there is no authority. But the fact that there were Christians called ana-baptists proves my point  that the true church was in existance at that time.

 

So then, they may not have been called "Baptists", but they were Baptists in their doctrine, belief and practice, just as we are today.

The Trail of Blood has some interesting content, but is Baptist drum beating to rally the troops. Carrol's premise that we came from John the "Baptist," is about as shallow, unscholarly, and historcally inaccurate as the church of Christ's claim to authentcity. The only reply I can make to this ridiculous statement is to quote Jesus: "Mt 11:11 Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
 12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force."
Our modern Baptist doctrine is a composite of beliefs that have been formulated over the last 400 or so years. Baptist doctrine is a fine system of beliefs, but does not neccessitate beleving that the Baptist church "as we know it" today, went all the way back to Jerusalem, (to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, equipped with a Donkey ministry to bring in little poor kids.)  This is utter nonsense and borders on heresy. It is much more than a "fine system of beliefs", our beliefs and doctrines are taken directly from the inspired Word of God. If you claim to be an Independent Fundamental Baptist, your claim that our beliefs have developed over the last 400 years. is anything BUT fundamental.

I would like to recommend the book, The Pilgrim Church, by E.H. Broadbent. Though an Anglican, he was genuinely converted and noticed the Church of England was NOTHING like the Book of Acts. Being well versed in several languages, traveling extensively, and having access to tons of great documents, he wrote a pretty comprehensive history of church progress through the ages, ending in the early 1920's.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

We are discussing History, not doctrine, on this thread, which disqualifies the lazy from joining.

Historically, there were Baptists before 17 th Century England, called Baptists.

One example is the Baptists in the Netherlands, who took in the Separatist church that fled there from England from the persecution of James 1.
These Baptists had a huge influence on the future Plymouthe Plantation Pilgrims, leading many to the Lord and Baptizing them.

We need history books to discuss history.

We need Scripture to discuss doctrine.

We IFB seem to be shamefully ignorant of history sometimes, and the wolves take advantage of that.

Why is this discussion important?

Because the "Baptists" in England to which the OP refers, were Calvinist Reformed Protestants.

Should our name be found to have come from dishonest roots, we should most certainly seek to distance ourselves from it.

So this discussion is important, from that perspective.

The doctrine that has had more Christians executed, than any other, is Baptism.
So, we wear a moniker tied into Martyrs past.
We identify with those who confessed Christ publicly, through immersion.

If the evil one can convince some simple sheep of Protestant roots to our name, they will be convinced of Protestant roots to our doctrine next, and join Rome in setting up the Man of Sin's short-lived kingdom, or a number of other winds of doctrine that blow.

We've already been sacked by Darby, Scofield, Torrey, Jones, Sunday, Finney, Azusa St., Rice, Hyles, Schaap, and that last being of those Reformed Baptist roots.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Wretched,

 

You didn't indicate who you were addressing. 

 

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

 

We are discussing History, not doctrine, on this thread, which disqualifies the lazy from joining.
 

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Baptists are Baptists by doctrine, not by the name itself. So yes, there were Baptists down through the centuries that were not known as Baptists.

 
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).
 

Baptists today hold to the very same beliefs and doctrines that the first church, under Jesus and His Apostles recorded in our Bible. Scriptural New Testament Churches are started by existing Scriptural New Testament Churches. So saying that some in the Puritan movement left it and adopted the teaching of the ana-baptists only proves that they were not true New Testament churches. Authority has a source, in the case of churches that source is Jesus Christ. Individuals coming out of an OBscure sect and taking on the teaching of Baptists cannot constitute a valid New testament Church; there is no authority. But the fact that there were Christians called ana-baptists proves my point that the true church was in existance at that time.

<snip>

So then, they may not have been called "Baptists", but they were Baptists in their doctrine, belief and practice, just as we are today.


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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...