Featured Any church whose origin was in Medieval or modern times is not the church that Christ set up

http://www.ntbt.org/Articles/ChurchBook for PDF.pdf

Any church whose origin was in Medieval or modern times is not the church that Christ set up, for the simple reason that it was not in existence when Christ set up His church, and did not come in to come into existence for a long time after. -W.M. Nevins, in “Why a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic.”

Therefore, this ardent test of identifying a church's founder drastically narrows down our search for a true New Testament church. (For the sake of brevity, we will now condense the above list into the following categories: Cults, Catholic, Protestants, and Baptists.)

Lest someone question why Baptists are not under the category of Protestants; let us explain these four major categories.

1. Cults. Cults would be considered any group that blatantly departs from the written Word of God, (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) If Cults can be traced back to a human founder, then they can be ruled out as a New Testament church.

2. The Roman Catholic Church with the Pope of Rome as its head. The Catholic Church historically began with Gregory the Great, whose pontificate extended from AD 590 to 604. “It did not originate in a day or year, but gradually subverted the apostles' teaching, and in centuries inaugurated full-grown popery.”

As is well known, the Roman Catholic predicates its claim to Scriptural origin on the supposition that Peter was the first Pope of Rome. Unless they can prove that Peter was at Rome, and that he was also a Pope, their claim to apostolic origin is utterly false… . But even were it granted that Peter was at Rome and that he was a pope, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has by faith and practice forfeited its right to be called a Scriptural church.21 It is very evident that the Catholic Church, built by Gregory the Great from the existing paganized, apostate material, five hundred and ninety years after Christ, cannot meet the historical test of Christ as to origin and perpetuity, and therefore is not the true church--the church which HE founded and promised should never cease to exist.22 3. Protestant churches. Protestant churches would be considered any group that broke away from the Catholic Church of Rome after 1530. (e.g. Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Christian Church, etc.) 4. Baptist churches. Baptist cannot be classified as Protestant, because there were Baptist churches long before the Reformation. As a matter of fact, Baptist are the only group that cannot trace its beginnings to a human founder. …

Baptist churches are unique and clearly distinguished from all others in that no one can truly point to anyone as the human founder. [emphasis add, DCM]. Neither can the date be fixed for their beginning this side of Christ. Some have tried it, and their disagreements and contradictions constitute prima facie evidence of their historical inaccuracy.

Those who would deny that Baptists date back to Christ, and who would assign them a modern origin, ought to hold council together and agree on some certain date! Otherwise their contradictory statements are liable to prejudice people in favor of the very thing they deny!23 Concerning Baptist origin, in his book The New Testament Church Whence? Which? Whither?, G.W. Orrino quotes J.H. Melton; No reliable Biblical or secular historian has ever traced Baptist to a human founder. Indeed, the testimony of eminent historians who are not Baptists is to the fact that Baptists cannot be traced back to a human founder.

In 1545, at the Council of Trent, Cardinal Hosius said, For over 1200 years the Baptists have more gladly suffered from their faith than any other group. Mosheim, the great Lutheran historian, says, Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in all the countries of Europe the people called Baptist. John Ridpath, the great Methodist historian, says, In 100 A. D. all Christians were Baptist.

Alexander Campbell, who was a member of the Baptist church before he established the so-called Church of Christ, said in Kentucky in 1823, Monuments to the existence of Baptists and their insistence upon baptism of believers only, can be found in every century back to the days of the Apostles and to Christ Himself. This is an amazing testimony of non-Baptists to the fact that Baptists and only Baptists can trace their ancestry back to the Son of God Himself.

Baptists are the only group that can be traced, by faith and practice, all the way back to Luke 6, when Jesus called out his apostles. Please note that we are not, by any means, suggesting apostolic succession. Concerning this subject of succession, Roy Mason writes; It will not be amiss for me to quote two or three well-known Baptists who have given this subject more than ordinary attention. In the writings of S .H. Ford, LL.D., of honored memory, we find these words: “Succession among Baptists is not a linked chain of churches or ministers, uninterrupted and traceable at this distant day … The true and defensible doctrine is that baptized believers have existed in every age since John baptized in Jordan, and have met as a baptized congregation in covenant and fellowship where an opportunity permitted.”

Again from W. A. Jarrell, D.D., author of a most convincing book on church perpetuity, I quote the following: “All that Baptists mean by 'church succession' or church perpetuity is: there has never been a day since the organization of the first New Testament church in which there was no genuine church of the New Testament existing on earth.”

As is indicated in the foregoing quotations, Baptist claim that the first New Testament church organized by Jesus was in doctrine and practice essentially the same as Baptist churches of today. They claim that there has never been a day since Jesus started the first one when such churches have not existed to bear true witness to Him.

They claim that there is sufficient historical proof to demonstrate that Baptist churches of today have direct historical connection with the churches of apostolic times. They believe that as time goes on and further investigations are made in the field of church history the proof of their continuity will become so irresistible that no reputable church historian can reasonably deny it.

They not only hold on the authority of the Word of God and reliable history that the churches of the New Testament were what would be called Baptist churches today; that Baptists are the historical descendants of these same New Testament churches, but they also believe and hold that Baptist churches will continue to exist until the Master comes again to this earth.

[Emphasis added, DCM]. Let me conclude this section by stating that, even though the first and most vital test in recognizing the kind of church which Christ began, is to identify its founder, we must also apply another important test. There are a few churches today that would claim Christ as their founder, but we will find that these groups will fail in this next examination.

For example, Bible churches, community churches, fellowship churches, etc., may say that their group was founded by Christ, but when the test of New Testament doctrine 16 is applied, we will see that they will indeed fail. This doctrinal test is conclusive in determining whether or not a church is truly a New Testament church. Just being Baptist in name, does not mean that that church is a New Testament church. To be a New Testament church, the congregation needs to be New Testament in doctrine. I am not minimizing the Baptist name by any means. For a true New Testament Baptist has an unparalleled heritage which dates back to Jesus Christ, and I am thrilled to be a part of that heritage.

As a Baptist, if I am called upon to be thrown in jail, and yes, even martyred, my only prayer is that I will be able to stand as firm as the countless thousands of others who, in centuries past were put to death for believing and holding fast to the precious doctrines as found in God's blessed Book! Someone may be saying, “I could never do that.” Then your focus is in the wrong place. We can only stand firm when we place our faith in Jesus Christ and practice the principle and precepts in His Word.

 

CHURCH CHARACTERISTICS.
Was the First Church a Baptist Church?

Chapter 3: Church Characteristics as seen in the First Church at Jerusalem

This great question calls for a careful consideration of Church Characteristics. Do Baptist churches of today possess the characteristics of the First Church at Jerusalem—the one Christ built? " On this rock I will build My church."

The pronouns are emphatic and prophetic.

The Lord knew that many churches would be built on other foundations, and fashioned many ways, but he built his own church after the pattern of which all the other churches of the first century were patterned.

Let us study the Characteristics of the First Church at Jerusalem, which was the church Christ built, and let us see how far Baptist churches agree with the mother church in Church Characteristics.

Personal characteristics are to be considered only as they belong to the qualifications for membership and office.

One may be a good man outside of church membership, and one may be bad with it. The church is the place for good men and not the place for bad men.

This error with Baptists is accidental and not characteristic.

A good man is no better for being outside of the church, and a bad man no better for being inside.

The reverse would be better for both.

Church membership can’t make a man good, but it can make a good man better; and it also makes the bad man worse, as it makes him appear what he is not, and so far, and generally farther, he acts the hypocrite.

So we enter now, not into a comparison of persons, but of churches.

There are churches many that are of men, but there is but one church of Christ, and that must be like the one he fashioned in all essential church features.

Let us study these in comparison with our own, and with others.

Chapter 3: Church Characteristics as seen in the First Church at Jerusalem

 

I am a child of God.

A Bible believer.

I know what Landmark Baptists are and what Pigeonholing means.

Landmark Baptists know what "Baptist-Type" belief is and that the first church of Jesus Christ was that, or we better find what church organizations are and be baptized by them, to join The Church that Jesus Built.

Unless a Landmark baptist church understands and allows me to believe that Jesus is Coming any second and that there is NOTHING that REMAINS to 'Happen' or be fulfilled prior to His Return, then we differ.

Landmark Baptists KNOW Church Truth.

Scofield has messed with their 'End Times'.

I have no doubt that Landmark Baptist churches have the Authority of God to baptize and that the 'CHARACTORICS that MAKEUP THEIR ORGANIZATIONS' are sound, Biblically.

There are Identifying Characteristics or Marks that will pinpoint whether a 'church' is a New Testament church like the KIND THAT JESUS BUILT, or not.

First, a 'church' must be recognized by the Bible definition of the word, "church" as exclusively 'an assembly' that assembles in a Divinely Organized congregated gathering.

Once, an individual soul understands what The Bible defines as a 'church', then they may have an interest in what the characteristics of one of those BiblicalOrganization are.

Not until.

Are you Rome?

 

Right.

Not 'one baptism', but more.

And not 'one' (kind of) "body", but two or more.

Satanic, non-Biblical inventions.

As if, "The" church is not simply a generic use of "churches" the same as "the husband" is the generic usage of, a "husband" (local), like dozens of other generic usages of words in The Bible.

...

http://www.ntbt.org/Articles/ChurchBook for PDF.pdf

Any church whose origin was in Medieval or modern times is not the church that Christ set up, for the simple reason that it was not in existence when Christ set up His church, and did not come in to come into existence for a long time after. -W.M. Nevins, in “Why a Baptist and not a Roman Catholic.”

Therefore, this ardent test of identifying a church's founder drastically narrows down our search for a true New Testament church. (For the sake of brevity, we will now condense the above list into the following categories: Cults, Catholic, Protestants, and Baptists.)

Lest someone question why Baptists are not under the category of Protestants; let us explain these four major categories.

1. Cults. Cults would be considered any group that blatantly departs from the written Word of God, (e.g. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) If Cults can be traced back to a human founder, then they can be ruled out as a New Testament church.

2. The Roman Catholic Church with the Pope of Rome as its head. The Catholic Church historically began with Gregory the Great, whose pontificate extended from AD 590 to 604. “It did not originate in a day or year, but gradually subverted the apostles' teaching, and in centuries inaugurated full-grown popery.”20 As is well known, the Roman Catholic predicates its claim to Scriptural origin on the supposition that Peter was the first Pope of Rome. Unless they can prove that Peter was at Rome, and that he was also a Pope, their claim to apostolic origin is utterly false… . But even were it granted that Peter was at Rome and that he was a pope, the Roman Catholic hierarchy has by faith and practice forfeited its right to be called a Scriptural church.

It is very evident that the Catholic Church, built by Gregory the Great from the existing paganized, apostate material, five hundred and ninety years after Christ, cannot meet the historical test of Christ as to origin and perpetuity, and therefore is not the true church--the church which HE founded and promised should never cease to exist.

3. Protestant churches. Protestant churches would be considered any group that broke away from the Catholic Church of Rome after 1530. (e.g. Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, Methodist, Christian Church, etc.)

4. Baptist churches. Baptist cannot be classified as Protestant, because there were Baptist churches long before the Reformation. As a matter of fact, Baptist are the only group that cannot trace its beginnings to a human founder. …

Baptist churches are unique and clearly distinguished from all others in that no one can truly point to anyone as the human founder. [emphasis add, DCM]. Neither can the date be fixed for their beginning this side of Christ. Some have tried it, and their disagreements and contradictions constitute prima facie evidence of their historical inaccuracy.

Those who would deny that Baptists date back to Christ, and who would assign them a modern origin, ought to hold council together and agree on some certain date! Otherwise their contradictory statements are liable to prejudice people in favor of the very thing they deny!23 Concerning Baptist origin, in his book The New Testament Church Whence?

Which? Whither?,

G.W. Orrino quotes J.H. Melton; No reliable Biblical or secular historian has ever traced Baptist to a human founder.

Indeed, the testimony of eminent historians who are not Baptists is to the fact that Baptists cannot be traced back to a human founder. In 1545, at the Council of Trent,
Cardinal Hosius said, For over 1200 years the Baptists have more gladly suffered from their faith than any other group. Mosheim, the great Lutheran historian, says, Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay concealed in all the countries of Europe the people called Baptist. John Ridpath, the great Methodist historian, says, In 100 A. D. all Christians were Baptist.

Alexander Campbell, who was a member of the Baptist church before he established the so-called Church of Christ, said in Kentucky in 1823, Monuments to the existence of Baptists and their insistence upon baptism of believers only, can be found in every century back to the days of the Apostles and to Christ Himself.

This is an amazing testimony of non-Baptists to the fact that Baptists and only Baptists can trace their ancestry back to the Son of God Himself.

Baptists are the only group that can be traced, by faith and practice, all the way back to Luke 6, when Jesus called out his apostles.

Please note that we are not, by any means, suggesting apostolic succession.

 

Provided your baptism was Scriptural.

A 'mother' church is of no Authority.

Each church-body is self-governing.

Scriptural Baptism gives the Authority and your situation is a perfect example.

"Where two or three are gathered together in My Name", is talking about what it says.

"Where two or three are gathered together in My Name" = we organized as a Baptist church.

(Certainly, children of God have The Holy Spirit Indwelling them, etc., but the Promise of "there I Will Be in the mist of them", is in organized, agreed-upon 'corporate capacity', to assemble, etc., etc., the members calling a Paster, etc.

The context tells us because it discusses church discipline.

"there I Will Be in the mist of them" is The Shekinah Glory Teaching ministry and Superintendence of The Holy Spirit).
















-\\\\\\\\\

 

The Lord's New Testament 'Baptist-type-believing' churches may be instigated, as yours was: 20. It Multiplied Like Baptist Churches (Acts 8:1-18; 9:31; 11:19-26). Whatever the circumstances or causes of their scatteration, if they chose, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, they congregated and organized on the voluntary principle, and elected their own officers. Any Baptist church can divide; or any part of it for a good reason can pull out and organize when and where it pleases, because individual liberty is not destroyed or impaired by church membership. The churches of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, etc., thus organized, were recognized by the mother church*, and by the apostles, and Christ. This is a golden mark.

They were acknowledged as a church of The Lord Jesus Christ, by the 'mother' church, that they exist independently, and not that the 'mother' church had to give their 'blessing' in any way.
...

Some will go legalistic on 'who does the baptizing', however, it is the specific church assembly that authorizes a baptism candidate and, therefore, the administer, also.

To me, an administrator needs to be strong enough to perform it and know how to.

They are authorized by the church members.

...
There are a couple of dozen detailed 'requirements' that match the first church of Jesus, at Jerusalem listed here, which may be condensed into 7 or 8 that I will post.

1. The First Church was Composed of Saved Persons.

2. They Were Discipled Before They Were Baptized (Matthew 28:19-20 and John 4:10). Others, as a rule, believe in discipling by baptizing. See A. Campbell, and Pedobaptist writers generally, and especially their practice.

3. They Repented Before They Were Baptized (Matthew 1:2, 7, 8; Luke 3:6, 8; Mark 1:4; Acts 13:24, etc). Baptist churches require evidence of Repentance before baptism. No others do.

4. They Were Convicted Before They, Repented (John 16:8-9; Acts 2:37; 1 Cor. 14:26-27). Baptist churches only make enquiry about this work of the Holy Spirit. All Baptists do not, but they violate the old-time rule of Baptists.

5. They Repented Before They Believed (Mark 1:15; Matthew 21:22; Acts 2:38 and 19:4; Heb. 6:1). Baptists believe the order is of vital importance. The order reversed is fatal to both repentance and faith.

6. They Were Baptized When They Believed (Acts 2:41; 8:12 ; 18:8). Not when they repented, or when eight days old, etc., as the custom of some is, or when born of a believing parent or parents, as the rule of others is. When they believe, is the time. This is characteristic only of Baptist churches.

7. They Experienced Conversion Before They Were Baptized (Acts 2:37 and 41; 10:43-47; Matthew 3:8-10). "Works meet for repentance" are the voluntary fruits of a good tree.

8. They Were Baptized In Water, and Not With Water (Mark 1:5 and 9, etc). So say the Greek, and so translated by four English Versions out of six, viz.: Tyndale, Wickliffe, Cramner, Rheims. Also America Standard Revision and Twentieth Century. Also George Campbell, Bengal, Lange, Myer, Abbott, Bennett, etc. Roman Catholics and Pedobaptists do not baptize in water, but "with" is their rule.

9. They Were Baptized by a Baptist Preacher. God had him thus named as the characteristic of his mission. Of course he looked after the necessary qualifications, or he could not have prepared a people for his Lord. Baptism was not his most important work, but his crowning work, which showed the vital work within. If one knows he was baptized by a Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Methodist, Mormon, Campbellite, Christian, etc., then he knows he was not baptized by a Baptist, and weighed in this balance, he is found wanting in this very important particular, as seen in next characteristic.

(The class was asked to bring Scripture proof that the Apostles who were " first put into the church " were baptized by John. The following are some of the Scriptures used in proof: (Matthew 8:11; Luke 3-5, 8; 7:20-30; Acts 1:4-5; 11:16-17 and 19:2-5, etc.)

10. They Were Baptized By One Who Had Authority From Heaven (Matthew 21:28-27; Mark 11:27-33; Luke 20:1-8; John 1:24-33; Eph. 4:4-5). All who were sprinkled or poured upon, or immersed as sinners, have a so-called baptism that is not of heaven, but of men. Those can’t be churches of Christ that have the baptism of men.

11. The First Church Had Baptism Rightly Related to Repentance and Remission of Sins. The following Scriptures, rightly interpreted, show this: Matthew 8:7-11; Mark 1:4; Luke 8:8; 24:47 (New Version); Acts 13:24; 19:4 and Acts 2:38. Baptist churches only hold these in right relation as a rule. It is our Characteristic.

12. Only the Saved and Baptized Were Added to the Church. Acts 2:41-47 (Revised Version) Dr. Jos. Smale, of Los Angeles, and some of our English churches, add the saved without baptism, but it is disorder, and they should forfeit their claim and recognition as churches of Christ. They are Baptist churches only in name. True church membership requires both salvation and baptism.

13. No Infants Were Baptized. Acts 2:41-42; 8:12, 18:8; Acts 2:39 with 5:25 and 13:32-88 were used in disproof. "Children;" in these places does not mean infants, but descendents. Also the Greek words, teknon, teknion, paideion and brephos were also considered. No Pedobaptist, or rather brephorantist has a reasonable hope of membership in the church of Jesus Christ. That is, if churches in all time are to conform to the original pattern. And what are patterns for, but for copy? "See that ye make all things after the pattern shown in the mount."

14. The First Church at Jerusalem Was Complete in Itself With Christ as the Only Head. There was no Pope, or Bishop, or Presbytery, or Conference there or elsewhere, to which it gave the least heed, or to which or whom it owed the least allegiance. In Acts 1:14, we see they attended to their own business in their own way. Peter could only suggest the business, and others could only nominate the proper persons for the office. The whole church, directed by the Lord (verse 24), decided the matter. That is just the way Baptist churches do today, and they only.

15. There Was No One Man in Authority (Matthew 20:20-26 ; Mark 10:35-45; Luke 22:24-27; Eph. 1:22).

16. There Were No Elect Few, Called Presbytery, Ruling Elders, etc., known in that day, and all who are thus ruled are not churches of Jesus Christ, for in them no one rules, but "all are brethren" Acts 20:28: Romans 12:8; 1 Timothy 5: 17; Hebrews 13:7-17, etc., are Episcopal colorings. See elsewhere.

17. Church Officers. Christ put the first members into the church (1 Cor. 12:28) and made Peter the pastor or shepherd (John 21:15-16), and chose Judas as deacon and apostle. Acts 1:17 says Judas had the lot of this deaconship, and verse 20 says he had a bishoprick, and verse 25 says that Matthias was elected to take the deaconship and apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, fell. As the apostolic office was temporary, and no one could fill it but "an eye witness of his resurrection," this left only two offices to be afterward supplied by the whole church, under the guidance only of the Holy Spirit-Christ’s vicegerent on earth (Acts 6:1-6). There is but one church with bishop and deacons elected by the church. Philippians 1:1 calls the whole church "saints, bishops and deacons."

18. It Had the Discipline of Its Own Members (Matthew 18:15; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:12-18; 2 Thess. 8:6, etc). A church disciplined by an officer or officers is not the church of Christ. Baptists only possess this Characteristic.

19. It Stood for Religious Liberty (Acts 4: 17-20, 29; 5:27-29, 40, 42). So did Paul and so have Baptist churches in all ages. See further on.

20. It Multiplied Like Baptist Churches (Acts 8:1-18; 9:31; 11:19-26). Whatever the circumstances or causes of their scatteration, if they chose, by the direction of the Holy Spirit, they congregated and organized on the voluntary principle, and elected their own officers. Any Baptist church can divide; or any part of it for a good reason can pull out and organize when and where it pleases, because individual liberty is not destroyed or impaired by church membership. The churches of Judea, Samaria, Galilee, etc., thus organized, were recognized by the mother church, and by the apostles, and Christ. This is a golden mark.

con't:

 

21. The First Church Was Persecuted (Acts 8:1-3). So it is characteristic of Baptist churches in all ages to be persecuted. This is a peculiar mark. Henry VIII, Luther, Calvin, etc., and the popes could fight each other, and fight viciously, but that is not suffering persecution. The world, and all that is of the world, hate a Baptist church for evident reasons, and that is why they have been persecuted (John 7:5-7 and 15:18-20). The world is afraid of the churches of Christ, but of no others. They are as terrible as an army with banners, yet they never carry the sword or carnal weapons, but weapons mightier than those to the pulling down of strongholds. A Baptist church testifies against the world that its deeds are evil. The world don’t want anything better than a state church, for it can remain as corrupt as before. Indeed, the rule has been that such a church corrupts the world, that is, makes it worse, for the worse parts of the world are where state churches have ruled for centuries.

22. The First Church Kept the Ordinances as Delivered, both in their order and meaning. They were only memorial or emblematic, and Baptism was put before the Supper. Only Baptist churches follow in this. All the others pervert them into saving ordinances, and many put baptism first, even before heaven, and then change baptism in every essential feature. So having no baptism, they "can’t eat the Lord’s supper" (1 Cor. 11:20).


23. If Christ and the Apostles Should Return to Earth, They Could Not Join Any But a Baptist Church. All have decided that John’s baptism was not a Christian baptism, and they could not, according to their rule, receive it. Baptist churches would gladly receive them on their baptism.

24. Such Churches Were to Continue, and Have Continued ‘Till Now (Matthew 16:18; Eph. 3:21, etc). We claim to belong, not only to a church like the one at Jerusalem, but to one, the like of which has existed in all the centuries since. I would not belong to any other kind. And this is not left to blind credulity. Suppose you call for the proof. I would be glad to produce it. I have it in great abundance, and of the right kind—the proof that proves, and I can prove that the proof proves the proposition. See if I don’t prove it. If Christ has not kept the gates of Hades from prevailing against his church, it was because he could not or would not. If he could not, his power failed; and if he would not, his promise failed; and in either case Christ is a failure, and there is no hope of the salvation of any man. s All modern churches are built on the supposition that he failed to keep his church as he built it. He never built a denominational, sectional or national church, for no one ever saw reference to such a church in the word of the Lord. If denominational, which? If sectional, what section? If national, what nation? Some think he used it in a universal sense, including all the saved in all ages. Then he commenced it in the garden of Eden, and there never was a time when such a church was on earth, and will not be, for all the saved have not been here, and will not be before the end. If a part of the church is on earth and a part in heaven, then a very small part is here, as nine tenths of the host are infants and idiots, and that from the heathen. Was this church persecuted? Are the gates of Hades persecuting the church in heaven? What sort of a church did he build, and that has been persecuted, and driven from place to place, even into the mountains and dens and caves of the earth? Was the church of God at Jerusalem a universal church? Did the Lord add the saved to the universal church? Then the saved were not in it, and his church is not made up of all the saved.





25. The church at Jerusalem was called the church of God. So every Baptist church is the church of God. It is nothing less, nothing more. It is not a part of it, nor is a part of it somewhere, else. It is composed of members each in his part, and all equal in authority. It can meet when and where it pleases, in or out of doors. It has Christ for its head, and the Holy Spirit for its heart. No man or men can exercise authority over it. No member in it has any authority. The authority is in the body when convened. What it binds or looses, is bound or loosed in heaven. There is no authority like this under the heavens. It is Christ’s executive on the earth, and he has no other. All of this and more can only be said of a Baptist church. I heard a preacher say that he thanked God he did not belong to the church of Christ, but to a branch of the same. I thank God that I do belong to the church of God, and not to a branch of the same. Did members at Jerusalem, Rome, Corinth, Philippi, etc., belong to the church of God, or to a branch of the same? Every Baptist church is The Church of God, and not a branch of the same. Every branch has a trunk that bears it, and severed from the trunk, it is fit for nothing but to burn. Where is the trunk of these branch churches? Rome is the trunk of Protestant branches; but Rome has cut off all these branches and consigned them to the fires of hell. If Rome is the heaven ordained trunk, then it had authority to bind and loose, to remit or retain sins, and that means to save or to damn. And that is what it claims. How can a man thank God that he belongs to a branch of such a trunk? Can a branch be better than the trunk that bore it? Shame on such church pride! A Baptist church is not a branch of that trunk, nor any other trunk. It is the thing itself, all to itself. Its members live in Christ, the vine. He is life to the members, but head to the church. The member gets life from the vine, while the church gets authority from its head. Others get life from sacraments and works, and authority from men. I glory in the church of God.

con't:

 

26. With others, church and denomination mean the same thing. The Methodist church is the Methodist denomination, whether taken as a whole or in its several parts. The Methodist Church South is the Methodist denomination South. And so, more or less, with all others. But not at all so with the Baptists. We cry aloud against a denominational church. With others the denominational church is all—with us it is nothing. It has no doctrines, no officers, no government, no meeting place, no mission and no commission. It never did anything, never will, never can. If all Baptists living could meet in one place, it would not be a church, because it could not be organized. As each person would be entitled to an equal voice in all matters, and equal authority in all things, the multitude would defeat every object for which a church meets. Such a church meeting would be as impracticable as the denomination is inconceivable. All the statistics that could be gathered of Baptists would leave many out. They are a host that can not be numbered. Many are numbered with other people. They are Baptists, but no one knows them. Of course, they are out of place, as Baptists often are, or God would not be calling on them to come out. And we doubtless have some numbered with us who are not Baptists. Wish we could exchange prisoners, as all such must be. Would be glad to give ten for one.

27. A Baptist church is composed of volunteers associated in congregational effort, each member in equal authority, and each church, complete in itself and independent of all other churches and of all outside authorities. Thus it was in the beginning.


Hence, church fellowship is founded on a common experience of grace, and a common responsibility in worship, work, labor, sacrifice, doctrine and authority.

Denominational fellowship is to be found in the comity of churches or individual concern for the welfare of all the churches instead of all Baptists.

A member who is indifferent to the welfare of his own church must be indifferent to the general welfare of all the churches. If the hand or eye or foot respond not to the demands of the body of which it is a member, how can it respond to humanity in general? If any charity begins at home, this is the charity. If one has no self-respect, what cares he for other people? If we love not those whom we know and see, how can we love those we never saw?

This loving all God’s people alike is fanatical foolishness and ludicrous lunacy.

A man that fellowships his own church will be a well-wisher of all other like churches, because all are engaged in the same cause. Individual association is for the church’s good, and church association is for the general good. If all the members were loyal to the church’s good, then the churches would be loyal to the denominational good, which with us can only mean the common good of all the churches.

Hence, one must begin with individual loyalty to his church.

No one is loyal to what he lightly esteems. Proper esteem compels loyalty. One who properly esteems his family or country would die for them and so of the church. A Baptist should fellowship a Baptist not so much for his personal qualities as for his ecclesiastical qualities-he is a member of the body or church of Christ-both members of the same body or church or a similar body. or church. So Baptists should have ecclesiastical rather than denominational pride. We can’t promote the prosperity of the denomination except through the churches.


If John the Baptist had baptized the multitude who applied for baptism (see Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9), it would perhaps have sealed their damnation. Why? Because they were destitute of the Spiritual prerequisites to baptism, and hence their baptism could only have been in "form" or, "according to the letter."

A man must first believe in Christ, and "whosoever believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself " (1 John 5:10); "hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation" (John 5:24); "has been born of God" (1 John 5:1) and "overcometh the world" (1 John 5:4-5), "is justified" (Rom: 5:1). Yea, he must have the blessings predicated of Repentance, Faith, Love, Confession, or baptism will lead him away and astray, and that to his own destruction.

How can a man obey in Spirit without Spiritual qualification?

If Spiritual fitness is not inquired into, then soon it will not be required.

You need not expect it if you don’t enact it; if not taught it will not be sought; if not held it will not be had.

If candidates go down into the water without having died to sin, and that means freedom from sin, and with no newness of life, then his baptism, so-called, would be a solemn profession of falsehoods. Romans 6:1-11 has no reference to baptism of the Holy Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit, or in the Holy Spirit, yet it is Spiritual baptism. It is not the natural man conforming to the letter, but the Spiritual man conforming to both better and Spirit of baptism.

 

4 elements make up Scritural Baptism.

The requirements previously involved 1. the Suitable Candidate (Saved)

2. the reason for them being Baptized (to picture what The Lord did for them)

3. Then, the method, or mode, is by immersion

4thly, By Authority, which is your question.

The church body holds the New Testament Authority to grant Scriptural Baptism that begins with an individual who was sent out or has gone out from a New Testament church.

What is a New Testament church?

One with the several characteristics or marks listed previously in wonderful, God-honoring detail, with Scriptures and, also, with indicators of what disqualifies an assembly from being Scriptural.

There are 7 identifying DOCTRINES listed below, which would of a minimum describe a Scriptural New Testament church.

It is the Scriptural New Testament church that recognizes the individual candidate with the church body having confidence they are Saved that they then authorizes, by vote, and administers Scriptural Baptism, with whoever they decide to do the dunking.

When you went out from your congregation, you carried Scriptural Baptism with you that you had received from them.

If your original church, for example, had baptized you as an infant, not so; The Glory of The Lord Had Departed that assembly.

However, in another example, if they just decided to go with infant baptism and then you left, you still have the Scriptural Baptism and that assembly had apostated.

Scriptural Baptism is determined by the seven distinctives of the administering church, below:

Baptist History Notebook, By Berlin Hisel

Baptist History Notebook
By Berlin Hisel

Chapter 1
THE TRACING OF BAPTIST HISTORY

"The Lord Jesus Christ built His church during His earthly ministry.

"To that church He gave the truth. "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15). Israel of the Old Testament was to be a priesthood to the nations.

"They failed and Jesus commissioned the church which He built to take His truth into all the world (Matthew 28:16-20). As they take the truth into the world they will be persecuted by Satan. That church will be the place where the rule of God will be manifested in outward life, which thing Satan hates.

"This is not to say that only Baptists are saved for that is not true. All who trust the Lord Jesus Christ savingly are saved. Not all Baptists are saved. So we are not saying that all Baptist churches (by name or identification) will exhibit a Trail of Blood. We are saying we are most likely to find this manifestation of warfare between the two kingdoms in true churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. Our search in the Baptist History Notebook will bear out this truth."

Christ's Church Built

Doing this, we must begin with the church which Jesus built and observe how Satan sought to corrupt it from within which resulted in a separation by the pure churches from the corrupt churches.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). The word "church" means assembly. The Lord said He would build "His" (My) church. This was to distinguish it from all other kinds of assemblies. He built His "kind" of assembly. That which distinguishes His from all the rest are the doctrines He gave to it. Those doctrinal peculiarities make it His kind of church.

What are those marks or doctrinal peculiarities? Dr. J. R. Graves in his book "Old Landmarkism" lists seven. Dr. Clarence Walker, in his introduction to the "Trail of Blood" (page 5) lists seven. Dr. D. B. Ray, in his "Baptist Succession"

[p. 8]
lists seven. To these could be added or subtracted, depending on the historian and what his purpose might be. Where one would list two doctrines under one head the next may list them separately. I will list eight but treat primarily three in this Notebook.


(1) The church's Head and Founder is Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:18).


(2) Its only rule of faith and practice is the Bible (II Timothy 3:15-17).


(3) Its members are to be only saved people (Acts 2:41).


(4) Its government is congregational (Acts 1:23-26 - equality).


(5) Its teaching on salvation is that it is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).


(6) It has but two ordinances; Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are symbolic (Matthew 28:19-20; I Corinthians 11:24).


(7) Its commission is inclusive (Matthew 28:16-20).


(8) It is independent (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 22:21).
Wherever, in history, in whatever age, you find churches teaching these doctrines, you have a Baptist church, no matter what name it may go by. It matters not if we cannot, from church to church, trace it back to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem. The succession is there but records may hinder or stop our search. What it teaches is the important thing. Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church so He guaranteed perpetuity.



Illustration
Maybe this illustration will help us. Suppose we have a covered bridge one mile long. As we look at this bridge we see a wagon drawn by a mule enter one end of the bridge. The mule is black, broken down, long-eared, and thin with ribs showing. The wagon is of wood and is red. It also has white stripes on it. The wheels are blue with spokes. After the wagon and mule enter the covered bridge we wait about thirty minutes. We see the wagon and mule come out at the other end of the bridge that fits exactly the description of the ones we saw enter the bridge. One who has a sound mind

[p. 9]
realizes that this is the same mule and wagon we observed earlier. This is like the church that Jesus built. In the Bible we have an accurate description of what the church looked like. As that church entered the covered bridge of time we wait and watch. If we look and see a church fitting the description of the one we saw earlier in the Bible we are forced to conclude that it must be the same church. As we watched the covered bridge earlier we may have seen several wagons drawn by mules come out of it. We looked and saw they did not fit the description of the one we saw earlier. They may have looked alike in many ways but if they are not exactly alike, we know they are different wagons and mules. So today, when we look at so called churches and see that they look a lot like the first one, let us look closely. If they do not meet the Bible description, conclude that they are not of the first church.
Thus we believe that Baptist churches are identified in history by their doctrines. It is where these "truths" or doctrines are stood for and taught that we will be able to observe the "Trail of Blood." The history of these "kind" of churches is written in blood. Here you will find outward manifestations of the battle between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Satan.

 

The name change would need to include a profession of Salvation by Repentance and Faith and a Baptist Organized assembly or person with Scriptural Baptism baptizing them, to then organize with the eight or so Baptist distinctives.

(1) The church's Head and Founder is Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:18).


(2) Its only rule of faith and practice is the Bible (II Timothy 3:15-17).


(3) Its members are to be only saved people (Acts 2:41).


(4) Its government is congregational (Acts 1:23-26 - equality).


(5) Its teaching on salvation is that it is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).


(6) It has but two ordinances; Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are symbolic (Matthew 28:19-20; I Corinthians 11:24).


(7) Its commission is inclusive (Matthew 28:16-20).


(8) It is independent (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 22:21).

Wherever, in history, in whatever age, you find churches teaching these doctrines, you have a Baptist church, no matter what name it may go by.

It matters not if we cannot, from church to church, trace it back to the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem.

The succession is there but records may hinder or stop our search.

What it teaches is the important thing.

Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against His church so He guaranteed perpetuity.

 

An assembly = a body= a church= an organized gathering = a congragation.

There is "one body", as to kind, a local body and not two bodies, as this
is non-Scriptural to confuse The Living Kingdom of God with The Lord's Kind of church bodies He assembled, as a Divine Institution.

Chapter 3: Church Characteristics as seen in the First Church at Jerusalem

1. The First Church was Composed of Saved Persons.

If John the Baptist had baptized the multitude who applied for baptism (see Matthew 3:7-10 and Luke 3:7-9), it would perhaps have sealed their damnation. Why? Because they were destitute of the Spiritual prerequisites to baptism, and hence their baptism could only have been in "form" or, "according to the letter."

A man must first believe in Christ, and "whosoever believeth in the Son of God hath the witness in himself " (1 John 5:10); "hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation" (John 5:24); "has been born of God" (1 John 5:1) and "overcometh the world" (1 John 5:4-5), "is justified" (Rom: 5:1). Yea, he must have the blessings predicated of Repentance, Faith, Love, Confession, or baptism will lead him awaI
IN\tual qualification? If Spiritual fitness is not inquired into, then soon it will not be required. You need not expect it if you don’t enact it; if not taught it will not be sought; if not held it will not be had. If candidates go down into the water without having died to sin, and that means freedom from sin, and with no newness of life, then his baptism, so called, would be a solemn profession of falsehoods. Romans 6:1-11 has no reference to baptism of the Holy Spirit, or by the Holy Spirit, or in the Holy Spirit, yet it is Spiritual baptism. It is not the natural man conforming to the letter, but the Spiritual man conforming to both better and Spirit of baptism.

How inconceivably high does this lift us above the idea of a natural man submitting to a sacrament in order to be saved. How degrading the thought to a spiritual man. I would prefer idolatry in any of its forms to such a perversion of a holy ordinance and its implied holy doctrines. No likeness of any god can save any man from anything, not even any likeness of the true God or of his Christ. We were saved by the death and resurrection of Christ, and not by the likeness of it. There is no more salvation in baptism than any other likeness of things or beings. If looking through the images to the gods is idolatry, so looking through this likeness to the reality is idolatry also. The reality comes first. We are not allowed to have any likeness of God or of Christ, but baptism, a likeness of salvation, is allowed and ordained as the profession of our previous hope before men. It is a "figure" of our salvation, not the putting away the filth of the flesh which is sin, but the answer of a good conscience by the resurrection of Christ. How was the answering conscience made good? " How much more shall the blood of Christ . . . purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God." (Heb. 9:14). "And the worshippers once purged should have no more conscience of sins." (Heb. 10:2). " bet us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession of our hope without wavering; for he is faithful that promised" (Heb. 10:22-24). Baptists are indeed distinguished for keeping the blood before water and Christ before the church. If baptism is the putting on of Christ and identifies us as Christians, ought we not to be Christians before we put on Christ? If the baptism of infants is infant baptism, and the baptism of believers is believers’ baptism, then is not the baptism of Christians Christian baptism? And if so, where can you find Christian baptism except among the Baptists? Certainly no others hold it as the rule.

Neither John the Baptist nor Peter, on Pentecost, admitted any to baptism till they gave evidence of conversion, and as baptism is before church membership, the evidence of conversion was necessary to that also.

Read Acts, chapters 1 and 2, and it is clear that the whole church was composed of saved persons. Baptist churches today admit only such as profess to be saved. This is the rule only of Baptist churches. Others don’t seek to have saved persons only. Armenians admit only those who are candidates for salvation. They think none are saved before death, and as death takes them out of their churches, none are saved while in their churches. They being witnesses, their churches have none in them that are saved only in process and prospect of salvation; and this prospect exceeding poor, if they are to be saved by works, and that is their only hope and plea.

The question now to be considered is, what is this spiritual kind of material that in the beginning was put into the church—God’s spiritual temple? There is an exception, but I think it helps to establish the rule. Christ knew from the beginning that Judas was a devil, yet he chose him, and put upon him all the honors that belong to a true disciple. He preached, wrought miracles, was treasurer, and had the best associations and influences that were ever provided for men. He was solemnly warned at the last supper, and was driven out on his devilish mission; and in the fare of all this, he sold his Master and betrayed him with kisses. All this was necessary according to the divine purpose and plan, and as none but a devil could do a devil’s work, a devil was chosen to do it. Now, if Judas, an unconverted man in the church, with all of his favorable advantages, was not deterred by detection and exposure " before the act "from its commission, on what ground can we found a hope that the church is the institution for a sinner to join? Yet the Catholic and Protestant world hold to this idea, and the writer entertains grave apprehension that we Baptists, in a large measure, have imbibed the damnable heresy. I fear many of our evangelists think that joining the church might do the sinner good, and with this salve on their doubting consciences they proceed to add fame to their name by large additions as a seal to their ministry.

But how was it in the beginning? With Judas out, the purged church was found tarrying in Jerusalem in protracted prayer-meeting, waiting for the promised enduement of power from on high. (Acts 1): In the second chapter we find they all continued with one accord in one place. Not an unconverted person among them. They were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spake as the Spirit gave them utterance. Their preaching was greatly blessed, and many were convicted of sin, and when they cried out, asking what they must do, they were not told to join the church for salvation. They were told to repent and be baptized, trusting upon the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and they (as well as the others) should receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter preached the same gospel in Acts 2:38 that he preached in Acts 10:43. The Greek idiom requires the above rendering.

The commission in Luke 24:47 has the same idiom: "Repentance unto the remission of sins, trusting upon his name, should be preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." So Peter, beginning at Jerusalem, used the same idiom-epi before the dative, signifying trust, reliance upon, etc.

The change from the painful conviction of sin to the glad reception of the Word is evidence. To be publicly baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, whom they had crucified, and with wicked hands had slain, and that in the face of fiery persecution, is evidence again; and if further evidence is wanted, it is abundantly supplied in what follows

"And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart; praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

The last words, as translated, render this doctrine doubtful. Did the Lord add to the church the saved or such as should be saved? If such as should be saved, the Catholics and Protestants are right and the Baptists wrong. If they were saved before they were added, the Baptists are right and the others wrong. The Catholic Bible reads: "And the Lord added daily to their society such as should be saved." King James follows with "the such as should be saved." This makes the salvation prospective, and as all men should be saved, then all should join the church, even infants.

To keep one out of the church until he is saved, and saved forever, is peculiarly Baptist doctrine, and we claim that the text, rightly translated, will prove it. I will introduce a few translations here, just such as have come to hand; also a few commentaries. Were they saved before added or added before saved? That is the question of questions, and upon it rests the doctrine of Regenerated Church Membership.