The term "Reformed"

[The Biblicist]

I have now been able to find these Broadmead church records. You do realise that this church was in Bristol, not London, don't you? There are some 640 pages to trawl through, so I am by no means finished, but may I draw your attention to pages 79-80 where it very clearly states that John Spilsbury departed from the Southwark Independent Church of Henry Jacob in 1633. So Spilsbury was a former Independent paedobaptist, and he did live in London for an extended period. That is no criticism whatsoever of Spilsbury. He left when his understanding of what the Scriptures teach became clearer, just as Knollys and Kiffin would do after him.

Fore those who are interested, these records of the Broadmead church may be found here: https://archive.org/details/therecordsofachu00terruoft

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

Absolutely right!
The reason I have argued so strongly against Landmarkism is that it is exclusive to the point that it banishes anyone who cannot pronounce its shibboleths to the outer margins of heaven, whereas those initiated into the mysteries of LM have exclusive rights to the New Jerusalem. It divides Christian against Christian. I know what I believe to be true and am prepared to argue for it, but Dispensationalists, Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians etc. are all my brothers in Christ so long as they hold to the Gospel and to the bodily return of Christ in glory.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

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

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There was safety in meeting with independents 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.

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Truth always has that effect - it separates.

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

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.

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 Biblicist]

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

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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

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.

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.

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

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

Bingo

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

 

[rsr]

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.

Looks like an interesting book, even if Jessey wasn't a real Baptist.

Jessey also undertook a revision of the King James Bible, but apparently it never saw the light of day and completely disappeared,, according to David Norton.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Looks like an interesting book, even if Jessey wasn't a real Baptist.

Jessey also undertook a revision of the King James Bible, but apparently it never saw the light of day and completely disappeared,, according to David Norton.

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

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

That is not true.

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

You pervert the gospel of Christ by demanding its mixture with KNOWN unregenerate infant membership as true "gospel" churches.

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

 

[rsr]

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

It is, isn't it? See if anyone bites.

 

[The Biblicist]

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?

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.