Featured Supernatural Self-Perpetuating Divine Design Ensures church Succession.

The "Linked Chain" Bugaboo

There are some who insist that in order to adequately substantiate the continuity of Baptist churches through the centuries we would have to be able to establish a linked chain of such churches, without a break, from the very first one started by Jesus.

I cannot agree with those who hold such a view, and indeed I consider it foolish.

Let us remember what those dissenting groups were up against through the days of their awful persecution.

Often they had to go into hiding, and if they wrote and published anything after printing came into vogue, it was usually seized and destroyed.

Under the circumstances, it is remarkable that we have as much information about these groups as we have.

Do I believe that there has been a linked chain of true churches through the centuries?

I certainly do, but my belief in the continuity of Baptist churches does not depend upon being able to trace this unbroken chain.

Rather IT DEPENDS UPON THE SACRED WORD OF PROMISE SPOKEN BY CHRIST OUR LORD.

Since I have trusted my very soul to Christ, I can surely trust Him to keep His word to preserve His church.

It is a pretty sorry Christian who says, "I can't take the mere promise of Jesus - I must have some actual links hooked up in an unbroken chain from Christ until now, if I'm to believe in Baptist church continuity."

I have seen the pedigree of a Tennessee Baptist church that traces it's history back through the centuries to the days of Christ, giving historical references to substantiate the claim.

That's very interesting, and it presents one case of a chain link history back to New Testament times. Cardinal Hosius previously quoted, an enemy of those early dissenting assemblies, dates Baptists back to 354 A.D.

That's quite an admission, and it certainly favors the idea of a chain link line of succession.

John Clark Ridpath, Methodist author of "Ridpath's History of the World," in a letter to Baptist historian W. A. Jarrell, said that there were Baptists existing in the year A.D. 100.

Other writers of different denominations, have readily admitted the existence of Baptists back in the very early centuries.

There is every indication that Baptist churches existed in unbroken historical continuity from apostolic days, but the point I am insisting on is this: WE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO HAVE EXAMPLES OF CHAIN LINK PEDIGREES HISTORICALLY VERIFIED AND WITHOUT THE ABSENCE OF A SINGLE LINK, TO ENABLE US TO FULLY BELIEVE IN THE PERPETUITY OF BAPTIST CHURCHES."

"For instance, the Anabaptists may be to some historians a band of foolish radicals, while to others they may be the persecuted heroes of the Cross.

The historian's account will magnify or minimize certain events in their lives according to how he evaluates them as a people.

"We see what we want to see. . . ."

Buell H. Kazee, The Church and the Ordinances, "The Problem of Baptism in History", pp. 97-98.

 

"The woman (The Lord's Organized assemblies)
fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God..."
Revelation 12:6

 

Our church prints this book,
"The Great Commission Credentials", by Mark Fenison,

and our church pre-dates J.R. Graves' birth, by many moons, yet our authority came, according to the Biblical doctrine of “church succession.”


"Bryan Station Baptist Church is a local, visible, called-out assembly of scripturally baptized believers, covenanted together according to the Biblical pattern of a “one member, one vote,” spirit-led democracy; whose purpose is the carrying out of the Great Commission of Matthew 28:16-20. The Bible teaches that only such a church as this is authorized and constructed to be able to do so.

"Our authority came, according to the Biblical doctrine of “church succession,” through particular New England “separate” Baptists who had sought out existing Baptist churches for this arm of authority.

...
The outlined procedure this book follows is;

(1) to examine Matthew 28:19-20 in order to discover who are those referred to as“ye”by their contextual characteristics;

(2) to demonstrate this commission was observed in the book of Acts;

(3) to show that early English and American Baptists designated the proper observance by such phrases as “gospel order”or “due binding order”or “regular church order”etc.;

(4) to demonstrate that historical “Landmark” Baptists thoroughly refuted the idea of “direct” authority as they believed the Great Commission was

(a) not given to the ministry, much less merely baptized believers;

(b) but was given solely to the church and

(c) included authority to constitute baptized believers into churches.

Mark W. Fenison February 20, 2007

...

In "The Great Commission Credentials", it states:

"There is no state of limbo where baptized believers exist outside the authority of an existing church while still unconstituted.

The so-called doctrine of“direct authority” demands this kind of ecclesiastical state of limbo and denies the horizontal and instrumental administrator identified as Go “ye”, to Jesus' church as a Divine Organization, in the Great Commission.

New Churches do not evolve out of thin air. Church authority is exercised by an existing church in regard to constituting new churches in two distinct ways.

One way is to call a church business meeting and by vote dismiss members for the express purpose to pursue constitution of a new church under the direction of a church-ordained man.

Another way is to call a church business meeting, and by vote, recommend a brother for ordination; and then send that man on the mission field to preach, baptize and gather the baptized believers into a church.

Behind both methods of church constitution is the vote of a church and thus “church authority”; and the result is that everything is done decently and in order without confusion.

Indeed, those who embrace the “direct authority” position ( the position that Christ directly and repeatedly redelivers this commission to believers in every generation.

According to this position, the Bible is the only authority necessary for any true believers to take up this commission at any time in any generation.

This is the foundation for the Reformation and all who originate their own denominations) admit that church authority is essential to the constitution of a church.



They admit that without church-authorized baptism there can be no scriptural materials out of which to constitute a church.

This is admission that churches cannot be constituted apart from direct linkage through baptism authorized and administered by a previous existing church.

This is organic link by link church succession in its historical sense, having church authority as its basis and baptism as its linkage between a preceding church and the newly constituted church.

The direct authority movement is in essence usurping church authority, rebelling against the authority of Scriptures, and providing the foundation for every form of ecclesiastical disorder and confusion imaginable.

It is the recipe for schism within churches that provides the schismatic a way around church discipline by simply self-organizing.

 

No, he believes the word church as a local body only, like you do, then applied in the generic since, as an institution.

That is the opposite of the Catholic universal view.


THE GENERIC USE OF A WORD

I believe that in a number of the remaining 18 verses the word church is used in the generic sense. In such a case the word may be singular and yet not refer to any particular object of the class but to every object of that class. Let me illustrate what I mean by a word being used abstractly, or generically. "The home is a Divine institution." The word home is used generically or abstractly in this sentence. The definite article with the word does not mean there is one particular home singled out from the rest. The word home has not taken on a new meaning; it retains its common meaning. There is no such thing as a universal, invisible home.
The word church is used abstractly in some of these debatable verses, not referring to any particular church at any definite place, but to the church as an institution. When a concrete application of the word is made it must be to a particular local church somewhere. Most Bible scholars chose to ignore the abstract usage of the word church in the Bible, although they will freely concede such is true of other words. Rather than allowing the word to retain its common meaning throughout the New Testament, a most reasonable and logical thing to do, they ascribe a new meaning to the word. They say it must mean a universal, invisible church. ekklesia never had such a meaning in the Greek writings. This new meaning is contrary to the primary and literal meaning of ekklesia. If I can give a word a new meaning so as to fit my creed when the common meaning makes good sense, then I can change the entire Bible to suit my fancy and the next person can do the same!

 

J.R. Graves was born in 1820 and our church was born by succession authority method on 1786.

Landmarkism before J. R. Graves

" Can Baptists, consistently with their principles or the Scriptures, recognize those societies not organized according to the pattern of the Jerusalem Church, but possessing different governments, different officers, a different class of members, different ordinances, doctrines and practices, as churches of Christ?"

 

I will continue to post Succesionist posts, not shove to the organic, historical, part, but the strictly Biblical, like Matthew 28:18.

Spontaneously?

the position that Christ directly and repeatedly redelivers this commission to believers in every generation?

"According to this position, the Bible is the only authority necessary for any true believers to take up this commission at any time in any generation?

This is the foundation for the Reformation and all who originate their own denominations