who is john symth and gerbel?

The First Church:

John the Baptist preached and baptized.

Jesus preached and called out disciples who preached and baptized.

Acts Ch.1, Jesus' disciples held a business meeting to select a replacement for Judas Iscariot--this all before Pentecost.

When can we call this assembly a church?

Gk. ekklesia= the assembly called out with a purpose.

Another question: How does the universal assembly assemble

Selah,

Bro. James

 

RSR, I thihk this is actually on topic since the discussion is about the origin of Baptists.

This was not the origin of hte Baptist church or any church since the church did not begin until Acts 2. I already pointed that out.

And when those disciples were baptized with the Spirit in Acts 2, the church was formed. Not before then. It is impossible to have the church without Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13). Therefore, there was no church during the earthly life of Christ.

But they were not a church yet. They met for prayer. The church began in Acts 2.

When it meets the requirement. The church is the body of Christ. Christ only has one body. Therefore, the church is singular, not plural.

The local churches are manifestations of the invisible body of Christ.

They will in heaven. The local church still exists even when it is not assembled. The church does not exist on Sunday morning from 10-12 only (or whatever your service times are). The church always exists, even when not assembled.

Furthermore, the NT clearly uses the term ekklesia in different ways, at times in ways impossible to be anything other than the invisible church.

But the point remians that John the Baptist was not the first Baptist. His was not Christian baptism, but the baptism of John. It existed long before there was a church to be baptized into.

 

The original point: Did John Smythe start anything Baptistic? Some would say no.

We chased this rabbit back to the shores of Galilee and got throughly bogged in when The First Church started. As far as the relevancy to history is concerned: this subject is pivotal in human history. Jesus Christ and Him crucified is only message of the New Testament Church--the pillar and ground of The Truth. No other events in history have had such a profound effect.


She has never apostasized nor had need for reform. Thank the Lord He has preserved Her through the gates of hell.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that Christ started his church. Nor do we disagree that there has always been a baptistic type approach to church. But historians are virtually unanimous that Smythe was the founder of the English General Baptists and the forerunner of modern Baptist.

Theologically, we can say with absolutely certainty that John the Baptist had nothing to do with it.

 

Back to square one: There are many church historians who believe John Smythe did not start anything called Baptist.

Are my historians listed above included in this list of historians who are virtually unanimous?
Are these unanimous historians from the "holy see" or its daughters?


Apparently, we are having difficulty with our paradigms of "rightly dividing the Word of Truth". Peter was not the only one present with Jesus in Matthew 16. (If this is where Peter was dubbed "PaPa", we are all in the wrong church.)
"The Rock" is not Peter--he is a pebble. Jesus is building His Church on that Solid Rock, the chief cornerstone, the Rock of offense, that grinds to powder the imitations--and there are many (imitations).

I still see Jesus on the Shores of Galilee, calling out James,John, Peter and the others--disciples of John the Baptist(there is that word again). Jesus taught them, authorized them to baptize, sent them out 2x2, prayed with them, had a memorial supper with them, and then died for them. He promised to be with them until the end of the age--through the gates of hell. In less than a hundred years the apostles were all dead.

What was Jesus talking about? These promises were to The Church, local and visible in every generation even to this day.

If that was not the First Church before the Day of Pentecost, then I know not how to rightly divide.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Bro. James
"Are my historians listed above included in this list of historians who are virtually unanimous?"
"
I suspect not.

"Are these unanimous historians from the "holy see" or its daughters?"
"
It may come as a surprise to you but the vast majority of Roman Catholic churchhistorians have never shown much interest in the baptist movement. The same goes for Eastern-Orthodox and Oriental-Orthodox churchhistorians and most Protestant historians tied to denominations that practice babybaptism.
Many churchhistorians are only truly interested in their own denomination and even the unusual ones (like me) whose focus lies outside their own branch of Christianity usually pick something other than baptist christianity (apparently Lutheranism is much sexier).

 

"unanimity"

Sometimes it seems Me, My and I make it unanimous.

Thankyou for the input about the "not so unamimous historians".

Regarding the historicity/authenticity/veracity of a given document:

We have the same kind of corroboration considerations with the manuscripts of the Holy Writ--the originals of which have yet to be discovered(they may not even exist). We take as many "copies" as are available and compare them. When different manuscripts from different generations agree to the "iota" level, it is reasonable to believe we have a "thus saith the Lord". This in no way excuses us from seeking the Word of God. We will surely give an accounting--not according to "our account".

There is also a distinct difference between a written message from the past being authentic and true/false. It is possible for something to be authentically false. i.e. The supposed author said it--but the statement is false. Example: the words of Satan in the Garden of Eden to Eve.

Point: Satan has practiced this kind of deception in every generation even today.

to be continued

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Yes, that is why I said "virtually." Had it not been for those, it would have been simply "unanimous." There is very little debate about your position among the historians.

Some are; some aren't. But that doesn't make much difference.

I don't dispute that. That is not the point.

You said it, not me. But it seems to bely a misunderstanding of "rightly dividing." It has nothing to do with the "when" or something; it is not about dividing history. It is about proper understanding of Scripture.

 

My point in saying that is that Paul makes clear in 1 Cor 12:13 that the thing that forms the body (the church, Eph 1) is Spirit baptism. If there has been no Spirit baptism, then there is no body. In Acts 1, the disciples are in Jerusalem waiting for the "promise of the Spirit." In Acts 2, that Spirit baptism comes. That is when the church began.

 

Not an assembly until Pentecost?

We have a group of baptized believers making and baptizing other believers. Baptized into what?

They have a memorial supper before their authority, head, power is offered as their ransom. He is dead, buried and resurrected; and promises them another Comforter to replace himself. He ascends to heaven and sends His replacement 50 days later.

In the meantime, the assembly asks God to lead them to a replacement for Judas Iscariot. God gives the answer.

This is not an assembly(church) because it is without power or mission or organization? The body of Christ is not the Body of Christ until the Spirit The Holy fills the room on the Day of Pentecost? I am having difficulty believing such ecclesiastic nonsense.

Maybe this is why some think the church is universal and invisible.

The scripture says there were thousands of souls ADDED to their number on Pentecost. How does one add to something that does not exist? The church was local and visible at this point for sure.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Ofcourse we are.

 

Not a church.

There was no Christian baptism prior to Pentecost. The disciples were commanded to baptize only in Matt 28 when Jesus ascended.

Which doesn't require a church.

Power, mission, and organization don't make a church. Pauls says Spirit baptism does.

You got it ... 1 Cor 12:13.

I must have missed this part. Where is the nonsense? Everything I have said is straight out of Scritpure.

REad the text and your question is answered. In Acts 1, there are 120 disciples waiting together for the promise of the Spirit. In Acts 2:1-4, the Spirit comes and baptizes them and they go out and preach. The 3000 souls were added to the 120.

You see, when you read Scripture, these things answer themselves.

But as our dear moderator suspected, this is off course, so if you are still confused about this, let's take it elsewhere.

 

Back to the right azimuth: from whence cometh the Baptists?

The word Baptist has become almost as ambiguous as the word Christian. There are Baptists who believe nearly everything and stand for nothing. The Mormons call themselves Christian and are so regarded by many so-called Christians even Baptists.

To better define who we are(our church), we have had to add some qualifiers to the word Baptist. The first one is: "Sovereign Grace", which has also been polluted. So we added another: "Landmark", which narrows the field considerably. We have no crosses, compasses, wreaths, trees, basketballs, pizza, images, or stained glass in our worship. We preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified to every nation, kindred, and tongue.

Not many can deal with the unadulterated Word of God. But The Spirit The Holy still draws the lost sheep unto the Father through the "preaching of the Sin, Righteousness, and Judgement to come.

We stedfastly contend that the Church which Jesus is still building was started during His personal ministry on this planet. This Church has certain discernable characteristics which have been in every generation even unto today.

This is not about a name but rather a "Faith and Practice" which is completely different from nominal Christianity. Jesus established His witnesses and He has preserved them in every generation.

To which thread shall we go?

Selah,

Bro. James

[ October 15, 2004, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

"The Mormons call themselves Christian and are so regarded by many so-called Christians even Baptists."
"
And often by Christians who would not consider other Christian groups that are a lot closer to them Christian.

"So we added another: "Landmark", which narrows the field considerably."
"We preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified to every nation, kindred, and tongue."
"
Considering that Landmarkism doesn't truly exist outside of the USA, early Landmarkism was tainted a little by racism and a lot of Landmarkers are KJVO, I'd say something went extremely wrong there.

"We have no crosses, compasses, wreaths, trees, basketballs, pizza, images, or stained glass in our worship."
"
And neither has my church, but we certainly aren't Landmark.