The term "Reformed"

Of course I know this church does not reside in London. I was quoting it because it was organized in 1640 and because of the information it provided.

However, this record does not provide a complete account of the origin of the Wapping Street church as that is found elsewhere. There was safety in meeting with independants as it was illegal to assemble in private conventicles at that period. John Lewis who was a preacher among the Church of England wrote a book on the Anabaptists claiming that Spilsbury was already immersed some years prior to 1633 in Amsterdam and that his small Anabaptist congregation met jointly with Jacob's.However, when part of Jacob's group became convinced of Spilsbury's Anabaptism, but neither Jacob or the rest embraced it, then those who had embraced it sought to leave peacefully and in an orderly manner with Spilsbury. In addition, the split occurred because Jacob's party were not keeping their rules of separation as independents and that placed them in danger as Anabaptists.

As you know very well, Spilsbury explicitly condemned se-baptism (and yet that is the conclusion you are drawing by your interpretation). The issue between Blount's group and Spilsbury was over direct or indirect church authority. Blounts group believed that direct church authority was needed to constitute a church or church to church succession. Spilsbury believed it could be done indirectly through a church baptized minister. This same argument is still being debated among Landmark Baptists today.

Presently, I am doing research in the Bodleian Library and don't have the materials in order yet. So I will be on a sabbatical until my research is concluded. I have about 55 different old English books to sift through written between 1551-1699.

 

Truth always has that effect - it separates. You believe the same thing,but you choose to draw the line of separation on the doctrine of salvation when the issue is not salvation but the issue is what are the essentials of a NT. church. Baptism is the FIRST step of service and decisive when defining the church of the NT as it is the public expression of true salvation for communion in one body.

 

Except te scriptures placed the dividing lineof Jesus Himmelf, the Coss/Resurrection, so ANY who taught He is Lord, and taught the real Gospel were acceptable in sight of God!

 

Taught the first and primary service defining of chuch would be "who do you say HE is?"

 

If so, shouldn't it be to test & confirm that the individual (who is baptized) truly regenerate, penitent & someone who actually repents?

 

My friend, have a great Christmas and enjoy your research.
I will only point out that you have admitted that Spillsbury's separatism did not extend to separating himself from Jacob's church. Yes, there were dangers in being a non-conformist in those days, but the danger applied as much to Independents as to Anabaptists. Find out what happened to Alexander Leighton in 1630 http://www.thereformation.info/alexander_leighton.htm and William Prynne, John Bastwicke and Henry Burton a few years later.

 

Error often has the same effect as the JWs can tell you.

My line of separation is the Gospel. Baptism is of no benefit whatsoever to one who does not receive the Gospel and in such cases it tends to destroy the church.

 

The issue is not what constitutes a true Christian, but what constitutes a true gospel NT. Church. You are confusing the two. The nature of a true church depends on a broader basis than determining what constitutes a true Christian. The truth of the gospel is but one aspect of a broader basis of essentials for what constitutes a true NT church.

Neither you or Martin seem to understand that the issue is VISIBLE COMMUNION of the saints in a PUBLIC ASSEMBLY that is the issue. Both of your positions are oxymoronic and hypocritical because neither of you are practicing what you preach. Not only so, but no Paedobaptists practice what you are preaching either. John Bunyan and his open communion church practiced this but where is your practice?

Second, we are not talking about unity in salvation but unity in church composition. Think about what I just said before responding to quickly - church composition - church interelated relationship with each other - common membership in one visible body.

If your position were true or workable we would see John Bunyan type assemblies neither Baptist or Paedbaptist; neither requiring baptism for membeship but merely savlation. No membership role, just membership due to salvation and showing up.

Finally, your view is foreign to the New Testament in both precept and example. - ZERO! Your view requires union between tradition and scripture - compromise of truth with error in a VISIBLE communion of the saints. You are fighting for what both scripture precept and example condemn.

 

You bear one similar mark with all enemies of Baptists in history. They intentionally slander by a variety of means. By comparison with cults, by willful perversions. You have been consistently comparing Landmark Baptists with J.W's which is a total slander and you know it but keep perpetuating it. Our separation is not based upon some false gospel,but it is due to being consistent with the true gospel. Our churches demand that which is consistent with true Biblical salvation equally characterize both the profession, baptism, Lord's Supper and membership of churches in order to be considered true "gospel" churches. If anyone ought to be compared to J.W.'s it your view as it demands mixture of truth and error as a basis for VISIBLE communion and as part of defining true "gospel" churches.That is oxymoronic and inconsistent with the gospel of grace.

That is not true. You pervert the gospel of Christ by demanding its mixture with KNOWN unregenerate infant membership as true "gospel" churches.

 

John Lewis a Church of England historian who wrote a book on the history of English Anabaptists states with regard to the year 1620, after demonstrating the existence of Anabaptists for several years past and some years after a formal statement of faith presented to the king states:

"It was not, it seems, until thirteen years after that, 1633, that the Anabaptist began to separate themselves from other Protestant dissenters, and form distinct societies of those of their own persuasion. The first of this kind, it seems, Sept. 12th this year. Their minister was John Spilsbury, before mentioned, and the congregation, about twenty men and women, with divers others" - John Lewis, A History of English Anabaptists, p. 74-75

In context, Lewis is admitting they were a separate people with regard to doctrine and distinctly Anabaptist but due to the times they formally assembled with other dissenters until that year when Spilsbury determined to separate from all other dissenters.

 

Bingo

 

I wonder if anyone has read this book:
http://jgduesing.com/2016/11/30/henry-jessey/
I think I may order it; it may have some details which will be helpful in the discussion here.

 

that is a provocative statement, what leads you to say he wasn't a real Baptist?

 

Just so we are clear, please detail for me what you think my view actually is. I ask you do perform this task because I am uncertain you truly know what my view actually is.

 

Read your own post #91 and then ask yourself what exactly were you approving? If that fails,then read the post you are responding to. For heaven sakes, why the silly games?

 

So if I am clear, you are saying that regeneration plays very little or zero part in the life of a Baptist....however his or her getting baptised and jumping through the daily rituals of The Baptist Church is? Don't you have it backwards? Shouldn't a genuine Baptist have to be Born Again before you can invite him to become a member? It appears your stressing induction into church (with or without) a genuine regeneration experience first.

 

Try not to get in such a tizzy. It can't be good for your health. I was merely pointing out that it is not only truth that divides that your group's error is not as egregious as the JWs is admitted, but that perhaps makes you the more dangerous as you are more plausible.

Your churches make an outward ordinance the basis of church fellowship instead of the Gospel.

Not at all. 'What God has cleansed you must not call common.'

So you believe that baptism is of benefit to those who do not receive the Gospel. How interesting.

If you believe that then you understand nothing of what I've been writing.

 

Why is it so difficult for you and Martin to understand it is not one or the other but BOTH. When we speak of the gospel we are speaking about salvation. However. when we speak of the church we are not speaking of that which saves and thus the church consists of MORE than the mere gospel unless you believe church membership saves. The gospel is essential for salvation but church membership requires MORE than merely being saved but includes ordinances and membership CONSISTENT with the gospel. It requires DISCIPLINE to correct and/or to remove INCONSISTENCIES with the gospel. True NT churches are consistent with the gospel with regard to their VISIBLE ORDER.

Paedobaptist churches are oxymoronic when it comes to gospel consistency.