How To Church Plant

"Every Baptist church being, in organization, a church complete in itself, and, in no way organically connected with any other church, such a thing as one church succeeding another, as the second link of a chain is added to and succeeds the first, or, as one Romish or Episcopal church succeeds another, is utterly foreign to and incompatible with Baptist church polity. Therefore, the talk about every link "jingling in the succession chain from the banks of the Jordan to the present," is ignorance or dust-throwing."~ W. A. Jarrell

 

Padre, could it be both?:smilewinkgrin:

 

The history behind this statement is interesting. Jarrell, Christian, Graves, Dayton and others were in an ongoing written debate with those who believed that Baptist originated in England with the reintroduction of immersion after 1641 (Whitsitt, etc.).

The debate had come down to demanding that if Baptists did not originate in 1641 in England but came down from the time of the Apostles, and that Baptist churches were constituted according to the definition of J.R. Graves which was defended by J.M Pendleton and published in The Baptist Enclyopedia by William Cathcart in the following summary:

"The doctrine of landmarkism is that baptism and church membership precede the preaching of the gospel, even as they precede communion at the Lord’s table. The argument is that Scriptural authority to preach emanates, under God, from a gospel church; that as “a visible church is a congregation of baptized believers,” etc., it follows that no Pedobaptist organization is a church in the Scriptural sense of the term, and that therefore Scriptural authority to preach cannot proceed from such an organization." William Cathcart, The Baptist Encyclopedia "Old-Landmarkism"

then their opponents demanded historical link by link evidence. In response to this demand, Landmarkers denied than any link by link historical evidence was necessary or needed for present day churches to be recognized as apostolic in origin or that there was sufficient historical evidence to prove they did.

Jarrell went on his book to defend a link by link succession of Baptist GROUPS instead of a link by link successoin of Baptist Churches.

The position of Jarrell and other Landmarkers was if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck it is because it is a duck and has come from ducks. Graves and others used the analogy of the cable that had recently been laid across the Alantic Ocean from Europe to America to defend the same point. Some used the analogy of an underground river, etc.

All equally denied that link by link evidence was necessary to prove a church was apostolic in origin. However, none denied that if there was sufficient history that such a case could be proved. Dr. J.T. Christian makes this affirmation in the preface of his first volume on Baptist History. Jarrel makes this argument by defending each group century by century back to the apostlic century as essentially Baptist in doctrine.

Hence, if you know the background of this written debate and what their opponents were demanding to support their ecclesiastical position based upon scripture then you can better understand their responses in their written defense.

BTW J.R. Graves made the same denial as Jarrell in his book "Old Landmarkism, What is it?

 

HP: Common Baptist notions such as Total depravity in the form of original sin, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and OSAS are not doctrines connected to Scripture or the teachings of the early churches. Sorry, no connecting ducks or underground rivers connecting common Baptist teachings found in these doctrinal positions mentioned here. There clear evidence that such notions do connect to a heathen philosopher named Augustine that wielded much power in the Catholic church, and was to a large degree followed closely in the teachings of John Calvin. Hardly an underground river, cable, or procession of ducks linking such notions to the early apostles or churches.

It is also interesting to note that some Baptist circles, to their credit, shy away from such a long created line of ducks, by trying to distance themselves from some of these long processions linked to Augustine and Calvin today.

 

Biblicist , strange how you accept the credence of mere men as Jarrell, Christian, Graves and Dayton rather than the early Christians writers that lived in the time of John and walked and talked with those that were deciples of those first twelve.Why is that ?

 

You are failing to understand the issue here. I am not giving them credance over anyone. I am simply explaining the historical background of an argument that took place in history. I do not claim them or any other uninspired man, or their words as authoritative for faith and practice.

 

Something like this?

"Wherever there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or churches covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New Testament," etc., "there is a Church of Christ, even though there was not a presbytery of ministers in a thousand miles of them to organize them into a church. There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a Baptist church." ~J.R. Graves

 

Check your box. I would have replied earlier but I was too busy heretically pastoring my unauthorized church. :godisgood:

 

>"Every Baptist church being, in organization, a church complete in itself, and, in no way organically connected with any other church . . . ."~ W. A. Jarrell

First, This is NOT in the Gospels.

Second, it IS in the very early chapters of Acts and Paul's Early writings.

Third, it is NOT in Acts after Paul's commissioning in Jerusalem by the Jerusalem Church NOT in Paul's Pastorals, probably written after Paul's death

A careful reading of Acts and Paul demonstrates that the Church evolved from a home church environment with a short event horizon (Jesus would return in a couple of days or a few months) to a top-down episcopal government that was digging in for the long haul.

 

This was Graves response to the need of a presbytery to constitute a church. Many in his day did not believe a church could be constituted apart from a plurality of elders. He demanded that materials for proper constitution must be provided from a previous existing church/chuches. He is not denying that authority for the constitution of three or more must originate with a previous existing church as he also says:

“If the church alone was commissioned to preserve and to preach the gospel, then it is certain that no other organization has the right to preach it –to trench upon the divine rights of the church. A Masonic Lodge, no more than a young Men’s Christian Association…have the least right to take the gospel in hand, select and commission ministers to go forth and preach it, administer its ordinances and organize churches.”–J. R. Graves, Old Landmarkism, What is it? p. 36

 

What in the name of Sam Hill does the Masonic Lodge, YMCA and Landmarkism have to do with the lack of sound Bible believing churches in parts of New Jersey? A brother in Christ has presented a need in his area. If you are so convinced that he needs a mother church you could have saved a lot of bytes and offered to help. Instead you have chosen to label all as heretics that don't believe as you do. That includes my ancestor Roger Williams. Yep. Thirteen generations in direct decendency. Not that it means much to anyone outside our family but blood is blood. Had you insulted Roger to me in person we'd probably have to go out back of the barn and discuss it further. Seeing BB doesn't come with a barn I'll just take my unsophisticated, heretical self elsewhere. I'm done here. :thumbs:

Talk to you later EWF. I'm home until noon weekdays.

 

Come on Padre. It not about them, it is about truth. If there was ever a place you might need to shine truth into a dark corner, it might just be here.:thumbs:

 

Apparently, you didn't take the time to understand what he said. He is saying in the clearest way possible that the Great Commission is given to the church as an institution and only the New Testament Church has been authorized to ordain preacher, send forth missionaries and organize new churches.

This commission does not belong to any other "Christian" institutions such as what the Masonic Lodge claims to be or Missionary societies claim to be.

Quite simple, if you just think about what he says. Graves is saying what I have been saying. God does not give the Great Commission to free lancers or to any other institution but a New Testament church (Acts 13:1-4).

 

Wherever there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or churches covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New Testament," etc., "there is a Church of Christ, even though there was not a presbytery of ministers in a thousand miles of them to organize them into a church. There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a Baptist church." ~J.R. Graves

Akin to having him say "Bananas are yellow." and you responding with "I told you he said bananas are blue." Note the phrase a regular Baptist church or churches? That's important. Baptized, like-minded and like-hearted Christian folk that covenant together to hold and teach and are governed by the New Testament. He said quite specifically, "There is not the slightest need of a council of presbyters to organize a Baptist church." The writer of the OP is a baptized Christian man and likewise his brother. According to Graves all they need is another baptized Christian man to covenant with them and they have constituted a church. Pedigree is of the least importance. There is no need to rattle the chain to the Jordan if you have Christian men coming out of their respective churches and covenanting together under the Banner of the Cross. They are accountable to Christ their Head and to the Word. Autonomy never severs the responsibility to stand on the Word.

 

Good post! What are you trying to do? Answer his question... not sure that's allowed on BB. :laugh:

 

There is no blue versus yellow bananas here at all. You have to understand the reason behind him giving both quotes. He is not contradicting himself.

He believes that it is the church alone that has authority to constitute churches through its ordained representatives but he does not believe it takes a prebytery or a plural number of preachers to do it. Also, he is not talking about the RULE but a carefully qualified EXCEPTION to the rule in an extreme case. IF they were previously members of a "regular" (constituted by the rule not the exception) previously existing Baptist Church then in such an IF scenario they could constitute themselves into a Baptist Church.

However, it is guys like you that reverse the EXCEPTION to the rule and make it the RULE.

I think Graves was wrong by his exception scenario as the Scripture does not provide any basis for his exception rule. However, Graves himself did not practice such an exception or recommend such an exception but regarded the "REGULAR" method of constitution the rule to be followed as the other quotation demonstrates and as scripture demonstrates (Acts 13:1-4).

 

From Darby's Commentary on 3 John....

John wrote:
Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth.
3 John 1:7-8 KJV

The constituted authority to preach was the integrity of their doctrine and not the institutional pedigree of their calling. Diotrephes, who was apparently an elder, was admonished for his lack of integrity to the Truth while Gaius and Demetrius were commended for walking in Truth. The visting brethern were received on the basis of what they proclaimed not on the basis of who sent them.

 

No sir! The authority of their ministry was grounded in the commission given by Christ. The validity of that authority was tested by the doctrine of Christ. So it is not one or the other but both. The very term "apostle" has the idea of authorized sent representative. The non-technical term "apostle" means on "sent" as an authorized representative by the congregation (Acts 13:1-4; Acts 14).