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

 

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
 

 

 

Thank you for your insight on this Larry. Nothing wrong with being called a Christian at all.

 

As for myself only, I choose to be indentified as Baptist. I think that to identify as a Baptist honors those bretheren who have gone before us, held to their beliefs and would not deny their Baptist heritage even at the expense of their lives and the lives of thier families. God called John The Baptist and I, for one, would love to have Him designate me as such.

 

But that is a personal conviction and not everyone will agree with it. I would be more than pleased if anyone recognized me as a Christian for the very same reasons you gave. "The the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." They were called by this name because people saw in them a people that were Christ like. It would be very humbling for someone to see this in me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

other than the Bible calling John a Baptist.  and that people were baptized no where in the Bible does Jesus, the 11 or Paul ever say, "the Baptist church" 

 

Jesus never said I will build my Baptist church and the gates of hell . . . 

 

Paul never said,  Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the Baptist church:

 

Nor the writer of Hebrews say, To the general assembly and Baptist church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

 

Nor did James say,  Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Baptist church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

 

Nor did Peter say,  The Baptist church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

 

Or John, I wrote unto the Baptist church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

 

Some say they are of one or the other and Paul said they were being carnal when they divided themselves up even while they were of one body.  Denominations are the dividing up of men among men and that is Carnal.

 

We are of one body and are to be of one mind.  This has not taken place since about 200AD

 

I will look up the source again but the first mention of "the Baptists" as a group was in a writ of the RC church and is is dated circa 1200AD and out dates any other known source. And they used it as a term of derision for their practice of baptizing only adult believers.  Any baptist who claim they trace Baptist to John the Baptist is in error (Johns baptism was the baptism of the remission of sins not any type of baptism we do today reflects Johns baptism), and no where is secular historical documentations or the Bible is anyone before 1200AD called a baptist.

 

But since 48BC if not sooner the believers were called Christians.  First in Antioch by Paul because he wanted the believers to understand the anointing they had of God.  Christ = anointed and -ian = one of another.  we are anointed ones of another, and we have the same power as that other, if only we walked in that understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

other than the Bible calling John a Baptist.  and that people were baptized no where in the Bible does Jesus, the 11 or Paul ever say, "the Baptist church" 

 

Jesus never said I will build my Baptist church and the gates of hell . . . 

 

Paul never said,  Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the Baptist church:

 

Nor the writer of Hebrews say, To the general assembly and Baptist church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

 

Nor did James say,  Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the Baptist church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:

 

Nor did Peter say,  The Baptist church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

 

Or John, I wrote unto the Baptist church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.

 

Some say they are of one or the other and Paul said they were being carnal when they divided themselves up even while they were of one body.  Denominations are the dividing up of men among men and that is Carnal.

 

We are of one body and are to be of one mind.  This has not taken place since about 200AD

 

I will look up the source again but the first mention of "the Baptists" as a group was in a writ of the RC church and is is dated circa 1200AD and out dates any other known source. And they used it as a term of derision for their practice of baptizing only adult believers.  Any baptist who claim they trace Baptist to John the Baptist is in error (Johns baptism was the baptism of the remission of sins not any type of baptism we do today reflects Johns baptism), and no where is secular historical documentations or the Bible is anyone before 1200AD called a baptist.

 

But since 48BC if not sooner the believers were called Christians.  First in Antioch by Paul because he wanted the believers to understand the anointing they had of God.  Christ = anointed and -ian = one of another.  we are anointed ones of another, and we have the same power as that other, if only we walked in that understanding.

 

AV,  I would like to remind you that the Bible didn't call John The Baptist by that name. God Almighty did and our Bible records it.

 

Since you made this simple mistake it makes me wonder if possibly you may be troubled with reading comprehension prOBlems. I very plainly said in that post that there was no need for names placed on churches in that time period simply because they were all the same.

 

The name "Baptist" is relatively recent to denote a specific doctrinal teaching....I said that also. We follow New testament Docrine to determine our roots.

 

It is kinda disheartening to have to keep repeating what I wrote in multiple replies to each person.

 

I know there are a lot of different posts in this thread and that makes it hard to keep up, But please, do try to keep up a bit better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Preacher Ben - your arguments here I find curious.
I have never used the term "just war" and I don't recall anyone doing so in this thread. ..... or on this site.

So to then use this as accusation against real baptists is ....... I don't know but it doesn't seem relevant nor fair.

And John - in this place there are those who use the name IFB and then say it doesn't mean anything.
They are the ones who have watered down what we are.
It used to be plain what an independent fundamental Baptist Church was - and yes the LITTLE THINGS VARIED because we are independent.
But there are some here who vary the bigger things whilst still claiming the name, and a few who vary the fundamentals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Plain facts - the Catholic Church never was a true church. End of story.
There always have been true churches since the time of Christ.
Any church that has right doctrine has right doctrine because of the Bible, not because of heritage.

Baptist churches should follow their heritage in a general sense through fundamental doctrine, not names. But that trail does not go via protestants or the Catholic Church.
It is not actually possible to follow a direct line from church to church to Christ. The history is simply not good enough.

However:
In the Bible, churches are started by people sent out from churches.
Throughout the Bible God's emphasis on authority is OBvious.
God DOES have a place in His plans for proper authority.

Today, if someone starts a church, we should follow the Biblical example and start that church via someone sent out from an existing Biblical church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In it's formative period there were saved folks in what became the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church as a whole has never been biblically sound, but the Catholic Church didn't begin as a monolithic power of total corruption; that took a little time.

 

I agree that, as much as is possible, new churches should be formed by those sent forth from an established church. However, that's not always possible, and hasn't always been possible.

 

Many churches in America and around the world, including Baptist churches, were founded by a pastor or laity out on their own as they traveled or migrated from one place to another.

 

A true church is a gathering of believers. As Christ said, where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

No, a church is more than just " a gathering of believers".


Who cares if some among the Catholics were saved.... it is irrelevant to the purpose of this thread. It only serves to further cloud the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

In it's formative period there were saved folks in what became the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church as a whole has never been biblically sound, but the Catholic Church didn't begin as a monolithic power of total corruption; that took a little time.

 

I agree that, as much as is possible, new churches should be formed by those sent forth from an established church. However, that's not always possible, and hasn't always been possible.

 

Many churches in America and around the world, including Baptist churches, were founded by a pastor or laity out on their own as they traveled or migrated from one place to another.

 

A true church is a gathering of believers. As Christ said, where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them.

 

John,

 

I am not sure we can say with any certainty that there were saved folks in the Catholic Church in the beginning, or even in what became the Catholic Church. I have never seen anything that would indicate that. But one thing we do know is that there were heretical members of the first church at Jerusalem, these men were not saved. They were the ones that this is recorded about:  Act 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.

 

It was false bretheren like this that went out from the first doctrinally correct churches and eventually formed their own brand of churches, which in turn became the Catholic Church. You are right in that this took a little time, it didn't happen over night.

 

I fail to see how, in our day and age that some think it may not be possible to get authorization from an esablished church to start a new work. Why would that be? There are established works everywhere and our communications systems make the jOB even easier. My church in Alask hosted many missionaries that came to us on deputation seeking either funding for their mission or authorization to start a work. If they can travel all the way to far away Alaska to do this, why do some then say it is not possible?

 

If a person, or missionary is truly called of God to start a work, God will prepare the way before him. It has always been that way, our God is able.

 

If there may be a pastor or laity out on thier own, surely they could have contact with the churches that they have pastored or attended.

 

Not to be "nit picky", but the promise of our Lord to be in the midst where two or three are gathered together in His name does not constitute a church. It is a promise of His presence among like minded believers, but not necessarily a church. I envision this as possibly applying to something akin to a prayer meeting between believers, or somehting of this sort.

 

I would not go to great lengths to argue this point, but it is my own belief. It is certainly not a serious enough of an issue to break fellowship over.

 

 

 

 

edited for spelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The issue seems to include who are true believers and what constitutes a true church. The importance of the beginning of the Catholic Church is important for the sake of truth. Many folks over the years have heard a preacher make a historical reference and when they looked into the matter found out what they had heard wasn't true. That damages and diminishes our message. Acknowledging the truth doesn't change the fact that during it's inception the churches coming together into what would be known as the Catholic Church (or, the Orthodox Church if one chooses to follow their version of the story) were already drifting away from biblical truth, compromising, and moving in the wrong direction. Things only got worse from there.

 

At the same time, there were other drifting churches that didn't join the Catholics and there were also biblically sound churches which didn't join with the Catholics. There have always been believers and churches outside the what became the Catholic/Orthodox Church(es).

 

What do you mean when you say a church is more than a gathering of believers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The RCC was founded by a sick perverted man who lusted after his own disgusting sick mother.
It was founded as a political entity, draped in religion, and merged with Babylonian idolatry.
This is the true history.

Helen became Mary, and Tamuz worship became Maryolatry, like the preferred worship of Hort...

No murderers of the Saints are ever getting a pass from me!

How long, O Lord?, Til you avenge their blood ?



Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Catholic/Orthodox Church wasn't formed by one man. It began as churches joining together, with more joining them as time went on. This Church quickly became a corrupt, humanistic grouping which gained in influence to the point a Roman emperor decided he would gain from an alliance with them. This led to the further corruption of this already corrupt institution. The bishop at Rome decided he should be the sole ruler of the churches; which led to the split which gave us the RCC and the Orthodox Churches; both claiming to be the "one true church with apostolic authority".

 

Early writings from those involved in the earliest stages of the formation of what would become the RCC and Orthodox Churches indicates at least some of them understood and taught biblical salvation even while being off in some other areas. This didn't last long as false gospels came to dominate throughout the Catholic/Orthodox church.

 

There is no pass for what the Catholic Church became or their war against biblical Christians. That war continues today, even if in more subtle ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Catholic/Orthodox Church wasn't formed by one man. It began as churches joining together, with more joining them as time went on. This Church quickly became a corrupt, humanistic grouping which gained in influence to the point a Roman emperor decided he would gain from an alliance with them. This led to the further corruption of this already corrupt institution. The bishop at Rome decided he should be the sole ruler of the churches; which led to the split which gave us the RCC and the Orthodox Churches; both claiming to be the "one true church with apostolic authority".

Early writings from those involved in the earliest stages of the formation of what would become the RCC and Orthodox Churches indicates at least some of them understood and taught biblical salvation even while being off in some other areas. This didn't last long as false gospels came to dominate throughout the Catholic/Orthodox church.

There is no pass for what the Catholic Church became or their war against biblical Christians. That war continues today, even if in more subtle ways.

You must not be talking about the likes of the pervert : Origen, or Agustine.

O, the RCC will look back and claim that it's roots lay in those who came before Constantine.
But none of them were ever part of the RCC, by default.
It didn't exist before Constantine.

I could claim that George Washington laid the groundwork for (you name it) in the U.S.
The fact that he was here before (whatever you named), doesn't mean that he had anything to do with the thing coming to pass.

The Queers tried to "out" Lincoln, of late, 150 years after the fact, because he had an unhappy wife, or whatever prism they shoot the past through.
But the truth is, he had nothing to do with their movement, or Sodomy, or Divorcing Mary Todd, even.
But they still try to claim him.
He was a great man, historically a champion of the underdog, so they would love to hail to him as part of their crowd.
And the RCC loves to point out any Christian leader since the Church began, and give them Sainthood, and say they were a "Church Father", no matter if they were never actually a part of any effort to bring about the RCC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

 

What do you mean when you say a church is more than a gathering of believers?

 

John, you can have a gathering of believers at the local coffee house sipping coffee, this is not a church. You can have a gathering of believers that play baseball together, this is not a church.

 

This is a church:  A Church is an assembly of baptized believers who have convenanted together for the purpose of glorifying God in all that they think, say, and do. They endeavor to achieve that purpose through the public worhsip of God, the preaching of His Word, and consistantly living what they preach, and by local and glOBal evangelistic efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...