The "CHURCH"

No I haven't. Let me ask you, Why are you a Baptist? If you don't believe Baptist doctrine to be Biblical then why not go and join the Anglicans, Methodists, or some other group that you do agree with?

I happen to believe that the Baptist doctrine that our church teaches is as close to NT doctrine as one can be. Therefore I am not ashamed to label the church at Jerusalem a Baptist church. Ours is patterned after it. I didn't add anything to the Word of God. I interpreted the Word of God correctly and made an application as I saw fit. It is the application that you are having a "hairy-fit" about.

 

Your rhetoric is unfathomable! I am glad to see you bow out. You might have a heart attack and blame me for it.

 

Believing Baptist doctrine to be biblical is the correct order. Putting Baptist before biblical is your error.

Just because, in this era, some Baptist doctrine (and not that of all Baptists, you are obviously incorrect) is sound and biblical is no call to make EVERY sound and biblical church Baptist.

I'm glad that you have no qualms about naming the Jerusalem church Baptist. I would suggest, however, that they would have plenty of qualms about the practice. They, after all, were the church of the apostles of Christ, the founding church of all other churches. If they wished to be called "Baptist" then we would find them called Baptist. Rather, we just find them called "church" and further, "followers of the way."

Are you so blind within your own arguments that you cannot see eisegesis when you practice it? Obviously not!

 

You may call it eisigesis; I don't. And if I drew enough attention to raise your ire a bit then I have accomplished my purposed. We ought not to be ashamed of our Baptist doctrine as you seem to be. If we are truly Biblical and we are contending for the faith as Jude commanding us; carrying out the Great Commission, as the Lord commanded us, what is there to be ashamed of? I am a Baptist because I am Biblical. I am a fundamentalist because not only do I say I believe the Bible, I practice the things in the Bible that I say I believe. That is what fundamentalism is all about: practicing what you preach. That makes me Biblical and no different than the First Baptist Church at Jerusalem.

 

When DHK and I refer to FBC Jerusalem, FBC Antioch, it is a light-hearted way of stating a basic belief. It is that Baptists historically have claimed to be biblical in its doctrine and practice. I certainly believe that the church I serve holds to doctrines and practices which the apostles and New Testament writers believed and taught.

It is not that Jerusalem church was Baptist. It is that Baptists claim kinship with the Jerusalem church.

We did not create the name Baptist for ourselves. It was given to us by those who opposed what we believed. It is what we believed about baptism which led them to use Baptist (or Baptizer) as an epithet. They gave us this label because we insisted on baptizing believers only, by immersion, to picture our death to sin and rising to walk in new life. Or, to picture the gospel--the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

It was those, those,hated Baptizers!!!! Before them were the Anabaptists, the Re-Baptizers, who would "re-baptize" those who had been sprinkled, those who had been baptized to be saved, even those who had been immersed by the Catholic Church or other group. (Catholics used to immerse, and do not deny that it is the Biblical method).

I fail to understand why anybody gets bent out of shape over our reference to FBC Jerusalem, particularly a Baptist. Shoot, I would think that this would be the goal of every Baptist church--to be like them.

 

I've found that trying to establish unbroken succession in these matters to be futile.

Would such somehow commend Baptists more? And another question is worth question, What stripe of Baptist?

Faith in Jesus alone is sufficient for me, not unbroken succession of some kind.

 

What has a fundamental mis-quoting of Scripture have to do with my being ashamed of being Baptist (and, for the record, I am not!). You are diverting the argument away from your own faulty doctrine and making it my problem by making one's being "Baptist" the core the the argument. Shame on you...

The church at Jerusalem was not "Baptist." It was "the church." Baptist came much later after men, such as yourself, took "the church" and began tinkering with it in opposition to what was recorded in the Word of God for your own needs, use, and perversions. It was then that God caused men, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom to reform that diverted church back to a biblical basis, and from that came "Baptist."

As for practicing the things in the Bible, what does the Bible have to say about people who insert their own doctrines into the text?

 

For the record, I get it. I also understand the difference between a "lighthearted expression" and a firm legalistic-fundamentalistic attempt to make history something that it is not. When we have the order correct, we can rightfully say that we who are called Baptists follow the examples that we see in the early church. But to call the church at Jerusalem Baptist, then to take me to task for correcting that issue I can not and will not accept. It just is not so, and nothing anyone can bring to the table will make it so. That is pure and blatant historical revisionism on a par with the Catholic revisionism that claims Peter as first pope and Rome as the seat of all church authority.

God can raise up a biblically-based people from out of nothing more than a group of redeemed sinners and the Word. No sense in revising the history of the church into something it is not in order to justify one's existence -- especially in light of the fact that the ones doing so do so primarily in order to be separated from all of God's people. That is blatant sin.

 

Maybe I missed it, but I don't think anybody has claimed an unbroken succession in this thread, even though there is a case that can be made.

Perpetuity is another matter.

 

You're arguing against something that DHK and I are not arguing for in this thread.

Successionism is not the subject here.

For myself, I argue that Baptists claim kinship with the first churches, since our doctrines and practices are the same. That is kinship, not successionism. We're needlessly arguing semantics. It is not wrong to say that the first churches could have been called Baptist had somebody wanted to put a label on them. Because we believe the same things.

Wait a minute. Somebody did come up with the label. They attached it to John. John the Baptizer. Hmmm, was he the first Baptist? Naw, I'm just kidding about that.

I did mention perpetuity to TC Greek. It simply means that God has always had a local church. I believe that. I'm pretty sure you believe that.

 

DHK made successionism the topic. I am just refuting his insertion of the word Baptist into Scripture as if it belongs there. You are taking up for him. And, had they wanted that label in the 1st century, they were (as was God) more than capable of doing or saying so. That they (and God) did not may be our first clue as to why the views of DHK and those who support his view are incorrect from a biblical standpoint, which is, in fact, the subject of this thread.

As for the local church, of course I believe that God has always had a local church. Duh! I have not in any way, shape, or form denied that. I am, however, saying that the local church is also part of a larger set, proven scripturally, that is the church universal, the Bride of Christ, the body, and the one for whom Christ both prophesied and gave His life to institute.

Now, question back at you... Do you deny that God also has a "Church" that will be gathered, finally, as He brings her to the table as His bride that is made up of multiple local congregations down through the ages, and in places everywhere?

 

When the name Baptist first made its appearance, it was not a name picked by that church, but by its enemies.

If you have read any of my posts on this subject, you are already aware that I do not believe that the Bible teaches the existence of a universal church. I do believe, as you, that once Christ has returned the local church will disappear and we will all gather in a great General Assembly in Heaven. Then it will be known as the Bride.

The first churches certainly were that.

 

We find "the assembly" assembling at the table of the Lord when He calls us to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

To suggest that your very narrow definition of church is the only (or even biblically accurate) definition when you have to dance around a ton of passages to the contrary is a mistake that you bring to the discussion based on your own doctrine and tradition, not from the Word.

I find it interesting that you argue against the Word of God to satisfy your dictionary...

Further, your dictionary has the definition of ekklesia wrong. From ek (out of) and Kale in the Greek, ekklesia means "the called out ones," not "assembly." That the called out ones assemble is a biblical given, the term was first used to denote the entire nation of Israel, so that it means God's special called persons -- in total -- is accurate. Your narrow definition does damage to both the Word of God and to the local congregation who must see themselves as separated from all other local congregations by your preferred doctrine, something that the Lord Himself was against!

As it is Christ who "calls us out," we are, united and combined, the ekklesia of the Lord who gather together as the ekklesia in a local congregational setting until we finally gather together permanently in God's eternity.

 

You, in fact, do believe in a universal church. You just have to invent a category that works with your dispensation to make it work.You are basing your understanding on flawed dispensational charts instead of what the Word says.

Also, quit trying to make it seem as if this is my first exposure to this concept. I am quite familiar with the concept, it drives the churches that wish for un-godly separation instead of those who take to heart the high priestly prayer of Christ found in John's gospel, that we are one as Christ and the Father are one.

 

I have never denied that. The only time that all believers will be assembled together will be in heaven, especially at the marriage supper of the Lamb. You are right on here. But I have mentioned this before.

Ekklesia means assembly; like baptidzo means immersion. That is one of our arguments for baptism by immersion. It is the meaning of the word. We don't pour or sprinkle because the very word means "to sprinkle." There is no such thing as a universal assembly because it goes against the very definition of the word. An assembly cannot be universal; it must be local by definition. We do that with other words. We must. Words have definitions for a reason. We can't change them to make them fit man-made doctrines.

I don't.

You are confusing etymology with definition.
We don't define a word by its etymology--history.
The definition of ekklesia is assembly. That is the only meaning that it has both in koine and Classical Greek. It means "assembly." To go one step further we might say it is an assembly that is called out by God. But that is only when it refers to the NT local church.

We don't define words by their etymology such as you have done.
If that were true, then you ought to be worshiping the Sun on the day of the Sun--Sunday; and the god of Thor, and the day of Thor--Thursday; and the god of Saturn, and the day of Saturn--Saturday?
--Do you worship these gods? These days were named after these gods. That is their etymology. But what is their meaning? The first, fifth, and seventh days of the week. Or perhaps they have a different meaning to you. I hope it is not the day of worshiping the sun?? But that is what the etymology tells us, not the meaning of the word.

We may be called out in one assembly in God's eternity, but not on this earth. Assembly can only have one meaning on this earth and that is local. Each local assembly is called out by God to gather together and obey the Great Commission and carry out the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. There is no assembly outside of a local assembly on this earth. There can't be. There is no such thing as an unassembled assembly.

 

Okay, a universal assembly in heaven. But not on this earth.

I'm not a dispensationalist, so I have no charts to work with.

Look, I give you credit for arriving at your view through a study of scripture. I arrived at my view the same way. It is not becoming of one to impugn the motives of another in this discussion.

About "ungodly" separation. I'm agin it. But I'm not about to change what I believe is Biblical truth to achieve some sort of fake unity.