"the original Baptist church"

[Earth Wind and Fire]

My Irish friend......We are two peas in a pod....When I sing, dogs howl. LOL......Thank the Good Lord for beer though!:laugh:

Jesus Is Lord

 

[Zenas]

BTW, technically, the SBC is only in operation for 3 days a year - the annual meeting.

Sure, Salty. And why do they call that complex on the edge of downtown Nashville the "Baptist Vatican?" Mighty expensive real estate to be in operation only three days a year.

 

[menageriekeeper]

In my opinion the word "Baptist" is not a denominational name but rather a doctrinal identity.

I'm going to have to remember this quote. It sums things up rather nicely.

 

[Tom Butler]

I sense there is some snickering going on at the idea that the first church was a Southern Baptist church.

Actually, it was just a Baptist church. Now hold on, don't laugh.

The identifying mark of a true New Testament church is its views on baptism. Thus, we modern-day Baptists share a kinship with the church Jesus established during his ministry, and with similar congregations from then until now.

That, and Jesus' on promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against his church.

I hope all will take the time to surf through the website Jim1999 cited in post #9. It will open some eyes.

 

[Jim1999]

sorry, posted in wrong forum.

 

[Tom Butler]

Okay, Jim, which forum did you mean to post in? I always value your opinion, whatever you post.

 

[Jim1999]

lol, matey,,it was on repentance,,,

Cheers, and bless you,

Jim

 

[Eagle]

Rolland Bainton, the mennonite scholar claims that the 16th century European Anabaptists called themselves "Baptists" in response to the epitaph "Ana-baptist" - Rolland Bainton, The Reformation of the 16th Century, p. 99

"To call these people Anabaptists, that is re-baptizers, was to malign them, because they denied that baptism was repeated, inasmuch as, infant baptism was no baptism at all. They called themselves simply Baptists, not re-Baptists. The offensive name was fastened to them in order to bring them under the penalty of the Justinian Code against the Donatists"

That's a nice quote and source there, Dr. Walter, thanks!

 

[Eagle]

No. We were talking about the first churches that were called "Baptist" by the people themselves. In my opinion the word "Baptist" is not a denominational name but rather a doctrinal identity. Therefore, in my opinion, "Baptist" churches (Baptist in doctrinal identity, not denominational name) have existed all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history.

The first Baptist church in Wales, at Olchon, was established in 1633.

And I agree Smyth was not what we would call a Baptist today. Of course, neither was Roger Williams, often (wrongly) given credit for establishing the first Baptist church in the US when, in reality, that honor goes to Dr. John Clarke of Newport.

There is no doubt that Williams founded a church which he called "Baptist" in Providence prior to Clarke founding the church in Newport, but my argument is that the church in Providence was not a Baptist church in doctrine and practice until sometime around 1645.

Williams had baptized himself prior to leaving Europe, then, in 1638 he was first baptized by Ezekiel Holliman then he, in turn, baptized Holliman! That, the claim was made, constituted the first Baptist church in the US.

However, I, being a Baptist, believe a church is an "organized, assembly of BAPTIZED believers." And, I, being a Baptist, believe that baptism is a CHURCH ordinance, so, two unbaptized people cannot baptize each other and claim to be a church. An already organized church must be the baptismal authority or the baptism is not scriptural and thus the church so founded is likewise illegitimate.

And a hearty AMEN!, to that! Thanks, TCassidy.

 

[Tom Butler]

I'm a John Clarke guy, myself. His church was the first Baptist congregation in America.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Actually all my Baptist family in the UK converted to Welsh Calvinist Methodists anyway so I could care less...lol.

 

[Jim1999]

Now matey, you should clarify that the Welsh Calvinist Methodists baptize by immersion too, and only believers! They just missed the name baptist on the door.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Now matey, you should clarify that the Welsh Calvinist Methodists baptize by immersion too, and only believers! They just missed the name baptist on the door.

Cheers,

Jim

Actually that came late in the movement, when they at last came up with a confession (emphasis: that did not copy Westminster). So there, you could be dunked and/or sprinkled. no deep frying allowed. you could get pickled though if you went to the pub with your mates.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[MNJacob]

How can you be a Calvinist Methodist? that baptizes by immersion.

My mother would be so happy, I could be a methodist again.

 

[Jim1999]

How can you be a Calvinist Methodist? that baptizes by immersion.
----------------------------------------------

Move to Wales!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

How can you be a Calvinist Methodist? that baptizes by immersion.
----------------------------------------------

Move to Wales!

Cheers,

Jim

Yes but the real one is by the Holy Spirit but He only gets up to Canada until September....I understand he doesnt like snow

 

[Gold Dragon]

Two main views of baptist heritage:

1. English separatist (1600s) - Baptist beginnings by Leon McBeth

2. Baptist Perpetuity (Early Church) - A History of Baptists by John T Christian

I am of the English separatist view.

There is no doubt that Williams founded a church which he called "Baptist" in Providence prior to Clarke founding the church in Newport, but my argument is that the church in Providence was not a Baptist church in doctrine and practice until sometime around 1645.

This view is new to me. Can you describe particular doctines and practices by Roger Williams and his church that were not Baptistic besides the baptising each other thing?

However, I, being a Baptist, believe a church is an "organized, assembly of BAPTIZED believers." And, I, being a Baptist, believe that baptism is a CHURCH ordinance, so, two unbaptized people cannot baptize each other and claim to be a church. An already organized church must be the baptismal authority or the baptism is not scriptural and thus the church so founded is likewise illegitimate.

How would Roger Williams or anyone else have done this if there were no organized assemblies of baptized believers around?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Which group do most American Baptists decend from?

General Baptists never took good root in America. The only group of Baptists who can trace their "descent" from the General Baptists are probably Free Will Baptists. At the same time, while the large majority of Baptist grouping had their American origins in Particular Baptists, there was a large move away from Particular Baptist ideas and doctrines starting in the early-mid 1800s. Nowadays, the influence of dispensationlism has moved many Baptists in an even different doctrinal direction such that few groups of Baptists could be considering doctrinal "descendants" of either General or Particular Baptists.

So, while Particular Baptists were the initial "roots" of most Baptists groups in America, the large majority have long separated from those "roots".

 

[Ed B]

....


Williams had baptized himself prior to leaving Europe, then, in 1638 he was first baptized by Ezekiel Holliman then he, in turn, baptized Holliman! That, the claim was made, constituted the first Baptist church in the US.

However, I, being a Baptist, believe a church is an "organized, assembly of BAPTIZED believers." And, I, being a Baptist, believe that baptism is a CHURCH ordinance, so, two unbaptized people cannot baptize each other and claim to be a church. An already organized church must be the baptismal authority or the baptism is not scriptural and thus the church so founded is likewise illegitimate.

So your saying you believe in apostolic succession at least so we can have legitimate baptisms and thus Baptist churches. After all, if there was a gap between the day of Pentecost and the Anabaptists and then the Particular Baptists, someone had to be the first to be baptized properly without anyone around qualified to do a proper biblical baptism. Ole Roger may have just recreated similar acts performed by first Anabaptists and then first Particular Baptist before him.

The way I understand the beginning of the Episcopal Church in the US as a separate body from the mother Anglican Church, they had to find some rebellious Scottish-Anglican (oxymoron) Bishops to consecrate the first rebel colonial Episcopal Bishops in order to preserve apostolic succession for eucharistic purposes. The English Anglican Bishops refused for obvious political reasons. In like manner who was qualified to baptized the first Particular and General Baptist in a way that qualified them as proper Baptists by your definition? Was the apostolic baptismal chain unbroken within the proper context of an autonomous local Church of baptized believers leading up to what was labeled General and Particular Baptists?

Definately a chicken or the egg scenario

Ed B... with tongue planted firmly in cheek.

 

[TCassidy]

So your saying you believe in apostolic succession at least so we can have legitimate baptisms and thus Baptist churches.

No. I did not and am not saying anything about a fictitious "Apostolic Succession."

After all, if there was a gap between the day of Pentecost and the Anabaptists and then the Particular Baptists, someone had to be the first to be baptized properly without anyone around qualified to do a proper biblical baptism.

Where did you get the idea nobody was scripturally baptized from Pentecost until the Anabaptists (who, for the most part, were not immersionists!)?

In like manner who was qualified to baptized the first Particular and General Baptist in a way that qualified them as proper Baptists by your definition?

Any baptized believers.

Definately a chicken or the egg scenario.

Not at all. Christ made a promise that all the authority of hell itself would not prevail against His church. I, for one, believe Him. Don't you?