Origin of the Baptist Church

[Anna_Scott]

Would you identify specifically what is necessary for salvation according to John.

Exactly what it says:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.. . . . .

**RTully,

There is far more to salvation than belief. The belief/faith alone argument (which is a Baptist claim) fails when you consider Scripture as a whole.**

**As I told James Least (who claimed salvation by faith alone through grace alone as a “Baptist Distinctive,”) the phrase faith alone appears verbatim in James Chapter 2, which clearly states we are not saved by faith alone, and faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
**
James 2: 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

**That does not mean that I believe in a “works” salvation. Christ accomplished our salvation on the cross. It is only through His Sacrifice that we live in the hope of eternal life.

Being a doer of the word and perseverance are also factors in our salvation.**

James 1: 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. 23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. 24For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

When Jesus sent out the Apostles, he warned them of the persecution they would face and said the one who endures to the end with be saved. Again, we find "perseverance."

Matthew 10: 22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

Baptism, the circumcision made without hands–which brings us into Covenant with God-- also plays a role in our salvation. Through Baptism, our sins are forgiven. We are buried with Christ in baptism, in which we are also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Acts 2: 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Colossians 2: 11 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.

The Lord’s Supper also plays a role in salvation and is connected with having life in us and being raised to eternal life.

John 6: 52 The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” 53So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.

**So, considering all these passages (including John 20:31,) we find belief, faith, being doers of the word, perseverance, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are all connected to salvation. Again, I will stress that it is through Christ that we are saved–it is through His ultimate Sacrifice that we are saved. Again, I am not advocating a “works salvation.”

Peace,
Anna**

Continued----Part 2, Next Page.

 

[Anna_Scott]

**Part 2 of 2

RTully,

Now we come to what I call the “scary” Scriptures—they truly bring me to that sense of working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:11-13).
**
2 Peter 2: 19. . .For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.

Hebrews 6: 4For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, since they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt.

Hebrews 10: 26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28 Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. 29How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

1 Corinthians 6: 9Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Galations 5: 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Matthew 7: 1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.

Matthew 7: 21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

**1 John 5: **16If anyone sees his brother committig a sin not leading to death, he shall ask, and God will give him life—to those who commit sins that do not lead to death. There is sin that leads to death; I do not say that one should pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that does not lead to death.

Revelaton 3: 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. 6** **–which implies one’s name could be blotted out of the Book of Life.

God does not take away our free will. We can’t just say I believe in Christ; I am saved and that’s it. We still have the potential to again become entangled in the defilements of the world; fall away; sin deliberately even after receiving the knowledge of truth. We can still commit sins that lead to death, and even have our name blotted out of the Book of Life.

So, the Baptist belief of salvation by belief/faith alone cannot be traced back to Holy Scripture. The important question is, at what point in the origin of the Baptist Church, did this belief become a “Baptist Distinctive”?**

I hope you have a good weekend as well.

Peace and blessings,
Anna**

 

[AmateurPianist]

No sorry, it’s the internet and topics get off base sometimes. Many were discussing scripture alone on previous pages and I was responding to that.

Got it! Carry on.

(although “Scripture Alone” is a meaningless phrase…to give the phrase meaning and context you need "Scripture alone (put some verb here like “is sufficient”) (put some activity here “to have sufficient knowledge so as to become regenerated”). Then and only then can this be evaluated. And be aware that theological words like “salvation” have different meanings to different folks…which is why I try to stay out of these arguments…you always ende up talking past each other)

 

[AmateurPianist]

Exactly what it says:

John 20:31

But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

No…lol…Have a nice weekend.

I assume here you are talking about how one starts there journey with Jesus. If so I agree entirely…

But this faith marks the beginning of the journey and is not the destination, correct?

Anyway…getting sidetracked…

 

[RTully]

Anna

I don’t believe God overcomplicated his clear message that believing in Christ leads to salvation. Now we could have an honest discussion of what true faith looks like in action, How the book of James complements Pauls Epistles and we could go on for pages about what true faith working through love is:

Galatians 5:6

‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love’

Galatians 2:20-21

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing

I could add :
Mark 16:15-16
John 3:16
Romans 10:9-10
Ephesians 2:8-9
Philippians 3:9

and on and on and on…If the idea is to have a verse off…

 

[pismopal]

Got it! Carry on.

(although “Scripture Alone” is a meaningless phrase…to give the phrase meaning and context you need "Scripture alone (put some verb here like “is sufficient”) (put some activity here “to have sufficient knowledge so as to become regenerated”). Then and only then can this be evaluated. And be aware that theological words like “salvation” have different meanings to different folks…which is why I try to stay out of these arguments…you always ende up talking past each other)

You are correct.".sola scriptura" is a meaningless phrase in a grammatical sense but to millions of non Catholics, it is a bumper sticker way of rejecting the teaching authority of the Church and Her sacraments. Each man is supposed to pick up a Bible and by “reading” the words, magically all the translations and context are not supposed to matter…the words will tell the reader what he needs to know. So…in the non grammatical sense…the theological sense…“sola scriptura” is again…a meaningless phrase.

 

[AmateurPianist]

You are correct.".sola scriptura" is a meaningless phrase in a grammatical sense but to millions of non Catholics, it is a bumper sticker way of rejecting the teaching authority of the Church and Her sacraments. Each man is supposed to pick up a Bible and by “reading” the words, magically all the translations and context are not supposed to matter…the words will tell the reader what he needs to know. So…in the non grammatical sense…the theological sense…“sola scriptura” is again…a meaningless phrase.

To be fair there are more nuanced ways of defining “Sola Scriptura” than what you are characterizing it as. Which why I suggest before the issue is debated that all parties agree to the definition they are debating.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread…

Here is a Wikipedia article on Baptists. Yeah I know it is wikipedia but for me it is good enough.

A quote:

Baptist Historian Bruce Gourley outlines four main views of Baptist origins: (1) The modern scholarly consensus that the denomination traces its origin to the 17th century via the English Separatists, (2) the view that it was an outgrowth of Anabaptist traditions, (3) the perpetuity view which assumes that the Baptist faith and practice has existed since the time of Christ, and (4) the successionist view which argues that Baptist churches actually existed in an unbroken chain since the time of Christ.[3]
[edit] English separatist view

In reading the article, I quickly learn that the only ones promoting the “perpetuity” and “successionist” views are…well…other Baptists.

Since this is a historical question, to me anyway a historical view can only be credible if supported by an unbiased historian. Unless someone can post here an unbiased historian that supports either view 3 or 4, to my way of thinking they lack credibility and should be rejected without hesitation.

So now we get to the question on whether the Baptists are an outgrowth of the anabaptists. The best that I can figure out was that the earliest Baptists might have been influenced by the anabaptists, but there is no lineage there. The lineage belongs to the Mennonites and other related groups. But I could be corrected if somebody could demonstrate lineage.

So that leaves the English Separatist origin which wikipedia states as the scholarly consensus. Since this is a historical issue and not an issue of faith and morals, historical scholars who have studied this are certainly more qualified than moi to state what the origin of the Baptist Church is.

 

[pismopal]

To be fair there are more nuanced ways of defining “Sola Scriptura” than what you are characterizing it as. Which why I suggest before the issue is debated that all parties agree to the definition they are debating.

I certainly don’t wish to be unfair but I also don’t think it is fair for me to beat around the bush. SS means to me, “Bible alone” or Scripture alone and I think my characterization of it is fair from the point of view of many Catholics…perhaps most of them who are familiar with the issue. Getting all parties to agree to a definition is going to be tough I’m thinking but well, you have mine…for openers.

 

[AmateurPianist]

I certainly don’t wish to be unfair but I also don’t think it is fair for me to beat around the bush. SS means to me, “Bible alone” or Scripture alone and I think my characterization of it is fair from the point of view of many Catholics…perhaps most of them who are familiar with the issue. Getting all parties to agree to a definition is going to be tough I’m thinking but well, you have mine…for openers.

And that is fine.

But from my experience in order to have a meaningful dialogue on a topic you have to be working from a common set of definitions. Otherwise you end up talking past each other. My experience anyway (but one I have observed here many times).

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna

I don’t believe God overcomplicated his clear message that believing in Christ leads to salvation.

I agree that believing in Christ leads to salvation. Holy Scripture also tells us that faith, being doers of the word, perseverance, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper are all connected to salvation.

Now we could have an honest discussion of what true faith looks like in action, How the book of James complements Pauls Epistles and we could go on for pages about what true faith working through love is:

Galatians 5:6

‘For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love’

**Galatians Chapter 5 **is talking about physical circumcision, which was a point of disagreement among early Christians.

Galatians Chapter 5 is not talking about the circumcision made without hands by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2: 11-12)

If you look at the whole chapter, it is clear this is a reference to physical circumcision.

Galatians 5

1For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

2Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in the Lord that you will take no other view than mine, and the one who is troubling you will bear the penalty, whoever he is. 11But if I, brothers, still preach circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been removed. 12I wish those who unsettle you would emasculate themselves!

13For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15But if you bite and devour one another, watch out that you are not consumed by one another.
Walk by the Spirit

16But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, 21envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.

25If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Galatians 2:20-21

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing

I could add :
Mark 16:15-16
John 3:16
Romans 10:9-10
Ephesians 2:8-9
Philippians 3:9

and on and on and on…If the idea is to have a verse off…

No, the idea is not to have a “verse off.” My point is that we must consider Scripture as a whole and when we do that we find there is more to salvation than belief/faith.

Not sure what point you are trying to make with the last Scriptures you cited, unless you are saying faith and grace make being doers of the word, perseverance, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper irrelevant. Would you clarify your point?

Peace,
Anna

 

[RTully]

unless you are saying faith and grace make being doers of the word, perseverance, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper irrelevant. Would you clarify your point?

Find me a true believer that does not get baptised and take part in the Lord’s Supper in one way or another and is not a doer of the word and I’ll show you a purple unicorn that shoots laser beams out his eyes. God knows who they are, they are in his Church.

Anyway we are way off topic and there are alot of people that do want to discuss the main point. Maybe another thread.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I certainly don’t wish to be unfair but I also don’t think it is fair for me to beat around the bush. SS means to me, “Bible alone” or Scripture alone and I think my characterization of it is fair from the point of view of many Catholics…perhaps most of them who are familiar with the issue. Getting all parties to agree to a definition is going to be tough I’m thinking but well, you have mine…for openers.

Keep in mind that it is not only Catholics who do not accept Sola Scriptura. I’m Anglican and I don’t believe in Sola Scriptura–simply because the moment one word of commentary has been spoken or written; Sola Scriptura is abandoned. So, if a pastor tells you what a passage of Scripture means, he has departed from Sola Scriptura. If all we need is Scripture, then we should all be in complete agreement regarding the interpretation of Scripture—interpretation being the key word.

And that is fine.

But from my experience in order to have a meaningful dialogue on a topic you have to be working from a common set of definitions. Otherwise you end up talking past each other. My experience anyway (but one I have observed here many times).

AP,

You are right about working from a common definition. Sola Scriptura has different meanings to different people–especially in the Protestant sector. The confusion over the definition of Sola Scriptura led to Solo Scriptura.

I think, as you pointed out, we are getting way off topic—though Sola Scriptura is a Baptist belief.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . .Not sure what point you are trying to make with the last Scriptures you cited, unless you are saying faith and grace make being doers of the word, perseverance, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper irrelevant. Would you clarify your point?

Find me a true believer that does not get baptised and take part in the Lord’s Supper in one way or another and is not a doer of the word and I’ll show you a purple unicorn that shoots laser beams out his eyes. God knows who they are, they are in his Church. . . .

Sounds like we agree that salvation involves more than belief/faith–though I would really like to see that purple unicorn. (To avoid more off topic discussion, I won’t address your comment about taking part in the Lord’s Supper in one way or another.)

Peace,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread…

Here is a Wikipedia article on Baptists. Yeah I know it is wikipedia but for me it is good enough.

A quote:

Baptist Historian Bruce Gourley outlines four main views of Baptist origins: (1) The modern scholarly consensus that the denomination traces its origin to the 17th century via the English Separatists, (2) the view that it was an outgrowth of Anabaptist traditions, (3) the perpetuity view which assumes that the Baptist faith and practice has existed since the time of Christ, and (4) the successionist view which argues that Baptist churches actually existed in an unbroken chain since the time of Christ.[3]
[edit] English separatist view

MarkBrown, former Baptist Minister, commented on Baptist history earlier in the thread. It speaks to your post. I think you will find it very informative.

don’t deny Baptist are Christians. I was born into a Baptist family, Grandfather was a Baptist Minister for 60 years. Trained in Seminary, leader of the Baptist Association (for our Catholic friends…Associational Directors are Baptist Ministers who loosely oversee a group of Baptist Churches in basically communion with each other. Think of a bishop without the power etc.)

I grew up and learned about Christ at the knee of this grandfather. What I am reading about baptists from some on this thread was and is not taught by baptists. Particularly Southern Baptists. They know, as I was taught in a Baptist seminary, the Baptist faith came out of the reformation. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology dismisses any trail of blood or attempts to trace baptist history back through heretics to Jesus or John the Baptist. Again, what I was taught in Baptist Seminary.

Now as to what is purposed in this post. A basic reading of history, church or secular, will lead to this reaction . Unless this was in jest and a joke.

In both the East, more so, than in the West politics, ie Emperors interfearing in Church affairs was the norm. I am reading A History of Christian Thought. So far I find it fair and brings up some points and challenges held historical beliefs. In the 6-9th Century, Rome did not have the power to surpress anything in the East. To busy trying to survive the Moors, Islamic invasions and the Frankish Kings.

Prior to that, the first 4 centuries the entire Church was persecuted. Edict of Milan save the entire Church, not just one part. Shortly there after the power center of the Empire moved
Eastward. Rome lost influence as the political power. The Emperors work closely with the Patriarch of Constantinople more than anyone. That became the apparent base of power for secular authority, who then tried to make it the base of Church authority.

You also forget the groups of Christians outside the Empire not under the authority of any of the Sees of the Church. No one supressed them, well the Muslims did. Rome could not. Your assertion of only three bases of Christianity does not hold up to even the simpliest of history reading or evidence. The barbarians who destroyed the western church were in many ways Christians. Arian Christians to be sure. History also tells us the Apostles established Christian groups outside your three locations concurrently.

As to Peter in Rome or Antoich. There is more evidence from the early church fathers telling us this happened, Clements Epistle to the Corinthians for one, and none about the baptist. I do think a baptist seminary would teach that if it was true.

Anna, true. I was a Baptist minister and trained in a Southern Baptist Seminary. John Carroll and his work was laugh at and dismissed. No one denied they, Baptist, came out of the Reformation. In fact they were and are
proud of that fact. In my old Association, the only and I mean the only pastor who
held to the “we came from John the Baptist” was an older minister who never
went to seminary or recieved any formal training. When he went on about
this, if the younger pastors could roll their eyes any harder they would come out of their heads. We all quickly learned you could not reason with him and facts meant nothing,
unless it supported his error.

I’m signing off for the night–lots to do in the real world.

Peace to all,
Anna

 

[Hboggs]

So what if succession of the Baptist Church cannot be proven all the way back to the 1st Century. You cannot prove that St. Peter established either Rome or Antioch either! What I think can be proven is that the Apostles established at least 3 major groups of Christians, namely the Jewish Christians that were centered in Jerusalem and lead by St Jacob (i.e. St James), the Gentile Christians that were lead by St Paul, and the Christians of Samaria. All three groups saw the Christian faith in somewhat of a different way. With the rise of the Christian Roman Empire all versions of Christians other than Gentile Christians centered in Rome were suppressed. It was after this point that the idea that there is only one true Church came to be the opinion that won the day.

Baptists are true Christians!

I’ll offer just one source to dispute your statement. Read the Homily for the Feasts of Sts. Peter and Paul by St. Leo The Great who was Pope from 440 to 461. He is a Doctor of the Church. You may be able to google it and find it on the internet.

 

[andrewstx]

Anyway, back to the topic of this thread…

Here is a Wikipedia article on Baptists. Yeah I know it is wikipedia but for me it is good enough.

A quote:

In reading the article, I quickly learn that the only ones promoting the “perpetuity” and “successionist” views are…well…other Baptists.

Since this is a historical question, to me anyway a historical view can only be credible if supported by an unbiased historian. Unless someone can post here an unbiased historian that supports either view 3 or 4, to my way of thinking they lack credibility and should be rejected without hesitation.

So now we get to the question on whether the Baptists are an outgrowth of the anabaptists. The best that I can figure out was that the earliest Baptists might have been influenced by the anabaptists, but there is no lineage there. The lineage belongs to the Mennonites and other related groups. But I could be corrected if somebody could demonstrate lineage.

So that leaves the English Separatist origin which wikipedia states as the scholarly consensus. Since this is a historical issue and not an issue of faith and morals, historical scholars who have studied this are certainly more qualified than moi to state what the origin of the Baptist Church is.

Views 3 and 4 are rejected by nearly everyone, including Baptists.

There are a small few who hold the “Trail of Blood” theory which posits that anyone who wan’t Catholic was automatically Baptists centuries Baptists existed. They lactch on to several non-orthodox hereitcal groups like the Paulicans for example to try and prove their Baptist succesion.

 

[James_Least]

Back to an earlier point: there is no such entity as: The Baptist Church. The denominational designations which have skewed the issue of Church perpetuity, were placed by the author of confusion.

True Baptists are not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation; in fact they were persecuted by many so-called Protestants. Henry–The Eighth One persecuted many as well, after having married his church to the English Crown. His scepter remains; the powers thereof apparently seriously diminished. I hasten to add: the British Isles have had several serious changes in rulers by divine fiat, Bloody Mary included. Elizabeth still heads Henry’s church, inspite of recent ecumenical maneuverings. Some would say Henry was a usurper anyway. Beware of sovereigns foisting crosses.

Interesting: there was a church on the Mayflower, landing at Plymouth Rock, November, 1620. These souls were fleeing the persecution of England; having fled first to Holland where they found no respite.

This issue is still: who has the keys for the right lock?

Peace,

James Least

 

[Anna_Scott]

Back to an earlier point: there is no such entity as: The Baptist Church. The denominational designations which have skewed the issue of Church perpetuity, were placed by the author of confusion.

Are you speaking for all Baptists now, James? By what authority are you able to do this?

You are claiming that there is no such entity as “The Baptist Church” and denominations have skewed the issue of Church perpetuity and were placed by the author of confusion. So, basically, you are saying Baptist denominations were placed by the author of confusion. I hope some of your Baptist brethren will speak to this statement.

James, earler in the thread, you named Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidelis, and Believer’s Baptism as “Baptist Distinctives” that date back to Apostolic times. BTW, you still haven’t provided any support for these 3 “Distinctives,” nor have you traced their origin to Apostolic times.

How can there be “Baptist Distinctives” that date back to Apostolic times, if there is no Baptist church?

True Baptists are not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation; in fact they were persecuted by many so-called Protestants. . . .

If there is no such thing as “The Baptist Church,” how can there be “True Baptists.” How would you identify a “True Baptist”? Is a “True Baptist” identified by belief in Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidelis, and Believer’s Baptism? If so, please provide support for these beliefs and support for their date back to Apostolic times.

This issue is still: who has the keys for the right lock?

Please explain this statement. How do you see the “keys” issue relating to the origin of the Baptist Church, a church you claim does not exist?

Peace,
Anna

 

[CopticChristian]

Back to an earlier point: there is no such entity as: The Baptist Church. The denominational designations which have skewed the issue of Church perpetuity, were placed by the author of confusion.

True Baptists are not part of the so-called Protestant Reformation; in fact they were persecuted by many so-called Protestants. Henry–The Eighth One persecuted many as well, after having married his church to the English Crown. His scepter remains; the powers thereof apparently seriously diminished. I hasten to add: the British Isles have had several serious changes in rulers by divine fiat, Bloody Mary included. Elizabeth still heads Henry’s church, inspite of recent ecumenical maneuverings. Some would say Henry was a usurper anyway. Beware of sovereigns foisting crosses.

Interesting: there was a church on the Mayflower, landing at Plymouth Rock, November, 1620. These souls were fleeing the persecution of England; having fled first to Holland where they found no respite.

This issue is still: who has the keys for the right lock?

Peace,

James Least

True. There is no entity “Baptist Church”. This is true for Protestant and Separtists. You are correct the author of confusion has designated denominations.

“True Baptists”…what are these, who are they, what do you mean by this? Where were they, what is their history, are they here today?

A church on the mayflower. Did they have room for a building or are you talking about just a bunch of people of like mind?

The Keys. Jesus gave the keys to Peter, they reside in Rome with Benedict. The gates are open, come on in.