Featured Who were the First Baptists?

SURPRISE!

Alan Gross the BAPTIST replied.

To Salty: No.

I don't know of any respect with which Roger Williams could be associated with the name, "Baptist", at all, even for the four months he may have attempted to allegedly have operated pretending to be one, according to demonic-inspired history (which would not be that unusual, after all, for lack of another word).

To Salty: Yes, (sort of).

There were Baptists that came over to America that established churches and towns who were all customarily slaughtered, prior to John Smyth.

See:

British Biographies, No. 1
By J. M. Cramp
John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and John Spilsbury
Henry Denne - Francis Cornwell, A.M. - Christopher Blackwood - Major-General Harrison - Colonel Hutchinson

Baptist Authors and History, 1527-1800, By Joseph Angus, D. D.
baptisthistoryhomepage.com › british.angus.authrs.hsty.html


The earliest books in defense of their views were written by John Smyth in 1608-9. More than seventy years earlier, however, literature supplies us with ...

Baptist History Notebook, By Berlin Hisel
baptisthistoryhomepage.com › hisel.bapt.hst.ntbk.chpt4.html
They teach that Baptists began with John Smyth. Some of them teach that Jesus Christ was only a man. They call themselves Baptists.

Baptist History Vindicated
baptisthistoryhomepage.com › bapt.his.vindicated.intro.html
By John T. Christian, 1899 ... for he speaks of John Smyth as one of those who restored the ordinance in England, and Smyth died in 1609 or 1610.

To Salty: How about them?

All good Baptists, all things being even, but they weren't the first Baptist-like beleivers.

Unless, you are segmenting your question to only believers who took or take the "Baptist" name, then I don't know why anyone would do that, because that would make Baptist History, as the True History of Christianity irrelevant.



Since, "the word "Baptist," as a distinctive appellation was not then known", as J.M. Cramp, D.D. says, it would be nice if a "distinctive appellation" could be nailed down and received for a definition of "Baptist-believing-like" Bible-believing Christians, but throwing the name "Baptist" in there is like a monkey wrench in many folks thinking process on all of it.

As you know, we Baptists like to make a claim regarding John the Baptist being called a Baptist, because we identify with his and Jesus and the Apostles' teachings regarding many subjects, so we feel justifiably related and would really care to adopt the name "Baptist" for all "Baptist-believing-like" Christians, from the time of Christ to the first century, the second, the third and all the way to today, and in keeping with Jesus' and the Apostles' inspired promises, undoubtedly continuing to Jesus' soon return.

I believe all of what Br, Spurgeon, and Br. Camp are saying, along with hundreds of other testimonies from all stripes of people whether claiming a connection to Christianity or not.

Not everyone "gets it", even if it is demonstrably demonstrated from scripture and history (not with a chain-link historical "Pedigree", as you know, but by overwhelming and ancient historical evidence of millions who have lived and tens of millions of Bible-believing Christians who have died for a "Baptist-believing-like" stance, especially those specific doctrines diametrically opposed to The Beast.

Maybe, they are not "meant" to "get it".

Nevertheless, what if another name altogether was interposed to aid the uninitiated to "get with it" and come on board the astoundingly and savagely unpopular Baptist Succession bandwagon?

What if we called "Baptist-believing-like" like faith and order saints throughout the centuries, "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints, throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity", which would assume not only Jesus' Command for "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", but also, as mentioned above, a genuine claim to the scriptural promise of perpetuity, when Jesus said, "lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

"Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

So, "Great-Commission proponent Bible-believers", would assume Jesus' Command for "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you", would include?

con't

 

The Bible is their only RULE for Faith and Practice.

They believe Jesus is The Savior.

And that Jesus is the Head of each individual assembly of Great-Commission proponent Bible believers.

With each individual assembly being made up of believers only (to the greatest extent discernable) being those blood-bought individuals covenanted together to congregate and worship the Lord are BLOOD BOUGHT, and that is what is meant by JESUS DIED FOR HIS CHURCH.

JESUS DIED FOR EACH of HIS INDIVIDUAL CONGRAGATING ASSEMBLIES that HAVE or ARE CARRYING OUT THE GREAT COMMISSION (to the tee, as best to their Spiritually Enabled ability, with again, being believers only to the greatest extent discernable, while he did not die for Judas Iscariot-types, present in the Providence of God.)

Each local assembly is taught, not only that Jesus is their Head standing in the Midst of their Candlestick and that Jesus died for those who ideally would be all or mostly all of each soul in the body of members, in particular, that the Lord has placed there, but that those type of Divinely Originated Organization-Organisms are The Bride(s) of Christ, as Spurgeon says below.

It doesn't matter if I or any one individual who lives is the only person on earth that has been blessed to have our Father in heaven having taught us about the Apple of His Eye, The Bride of Christ.

And that "To the general assembly", in Hebrews 12:23, means just that; the general assembly of all those who are in The Kingdom of God on earth and as saved members in The Family of God, are assembled together for the first time, and who have been Saved, but not:

A.) Saved and faithful followers who assembled and worshipped according to God's Commands in the Old Testament and

B.) Saved and faithful followers who assembled and worshipped according to God's Commands in the New Testament.

So, what are THEY CALLED?

"and church of the firstborn,..."

"church of the firstborn" are those who have been accustomed to assembling and worshiping God throughout all ages, as His witnesses, which I termed:

A.) Saved and faithful followers who assembled and worshipped according to God's Commands in the Old Testament and

B.) Saved and faithful followers who assembled and worshipped according to God's Commands in the New Testament.

With both the General assembly of saved souls in the Kingdom of God who have not been scripturally baptized and committed to congregate together to worship God as HE SAYS TO DO, BIBLICALLY SPEAKING and the assembled "church of the firstborn, as defined above,

being together those:
"which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,"

They are taught that each individual assembly of Bible-believing saints is composed of members scripturally baptized into a particular local body of believers only.

So, the only kind of "church" Jesus ever knew anything about is a local body of scripturally baptized believers assembled to carry out The Great Commission.

These believers have been scripturally baptized according to the Bible Doctrine of Church Succession/ Perpetuity, to the best of their Spiritually and Biblically Enabled ability.

These assemblies would be taught to not accept Alien-Baptism, Infant-baptism, Open Communion, worldliness, etc., and to protect these with Church Discipline, etc., etc.

They would be taught the Eternal Doctrines of Grace, as Bible believers, to every extent that body of divinity was known (from the Bible, prior to it being collected into a volume of Doctrines, of course).

They would be taught Soul Liberty that, as you know, lead to the first pieces of ground on earth with Religious Liberty to be established in America, of which John Symth was intimately influential.

Those would be the teachings involved in "teaching them all things" and is another effort at defining, "the word "Baptist," as a distinctive appellation.

Other religious societies not teaching these "all things" Jesus Commanded are not "Baptist" and I do not believe are recognized by Jesus to be a Spiritual Entity He called "My church" and His "Candlesticks".

Read Br. Spurgeon and Br. Camp with my adulterated new definition to substitute for the name, "Baptist" added; as , "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity".

"We believe that the "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity" are the original Christians.

"The "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity" did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born;

The "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity" never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken lineup to the apostles themselves.

"The "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity" have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river that may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.

"Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding The "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity" principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of The "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity" ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man.

The "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity" have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men."

— sort of: Charles H. Spurgeon

"Christian history, in the First Century, was strictly and properly The "Foremost Great-Commission proponent Bible-believing saints and Jesus' Candlesticks throughout the entire New Testament era, as the True History of Christianity's" history, although the word "Baptist," as a distinctive appellation was not then known.

"How could it be?

"How was it possible to call any Christians Baptist Christians, when all were Baptists?"

— sort of: J.M. Cramp, D.D.

 

By the post Reformation name or New Testament Apostolic teachings from first century?

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. . . ."

 

So all who call themselves Baptist are not really New Testament Baptists with an Acts 20:20 vision. ". . . and have taught . . . publicly, and from house to house, . . ."

 

One outsider component of stringent criteria for evaluation can be, "which of the two choices would be required, more so, to have had the Holy Spirit's Enablement needed to pull them off? simply to bring Glory to God as He reveals and/or commands?

Or, another way to approach it might be "why in the world would anyone be __the blue ones__ when from man's perspective it would make so much more sense to be those in the black, easier and more-popular and more economically feasible, in man's eyes.

I mentioned a couple of them, such as Closed Communion and The Doctrines of Grace, which I find to simply be as Eternal as the bible, itself.

So, speaking of time, one could ask themselves what did all "Baptists" believe 50 years ago?, 75 years ago, a 100?, 200?, the Ana-Baptists, which go way back with part of their name being "Baptist", or the Donatists?

Couldn't you make a case for each and all of the following to be teachings that are Satan inspired and/or lost people-influenced Atheists that are Fatalists at best and at worst, heathens?: A?, open communion?, elder-led?, 7th day?, "makes no difference"?, old age creation?, affiliated groups (that usurp the local assemblies Authority)?, Hardshellism?, Campbellism?, alien-baptism?, infant-baptism?, modern bibles based on DIFFERENT TEXTS WHETHER ANYBODY HAS CAUGHT ONTO THAT CLINCHER OR NOT, and low and behold, the worst manuscripts known to mankind, etc., etc., on down through the linage of modern this and modern that 'Christian' apostasy? and moves toward the resurfacing of the age-old underground Occult?

 

There are Catholic groups calling themselves "Baptist" who teach that Budistic practices make their people better Christians.

So, yeah there would be a way to historically identify what I have re-named historical Christianity, however there is also the component of:

 

You can say that again. (since initially, it was posted twice. Yuk yuk.)

Not a point of fellowship,

although prior to prohibition there may not have been any Grape-juicers(?) Dunno. My home church and one I attended before are Grape-juice.

One could be legalistically so, at a point, and mine now can be just as gently spiritually Bible as you could ever want, but both are Grape-juice.

I have heard Wine believers be downright legalistic and say you aren't saved if you don't take it, but legalism can be found anywhere, even over the length of skirts. Our church had to amend our statement of faith, or whatever it was, from no skirts showing the ankles.... Ah, so there are myriad legalistic things that any of these you listed and others could be turned into, by the flesh.

We do not make Grape-juice / wine a point of fellowship and try to request that none of our "like faith and order" (on all or most everything else) sister churches do....

You know what? It is Scripturally possible, possibly, that the Lord God of the Universe may not see ANY difference between the two and considers them both, "fruit of the vine". Thus, if so, that really would make it no issue.

I made a point of that in adding to my reply #8. We do not fellowship with churches using the modern Bibles. One of our sister churches recently canceled a conference when they found out two of the speakers were going to use the ESV, or whatever.

Why? Something along the lines of those versions being "not sufficient for faith and practice" or "The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties," etc., etc.

in the London Baptist Confession of 1644, for example:

"VII.

"The rule of this knowledge, faith, and obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not man's inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures."

John 5:39;
2 Tim. 3:15-17;
Col. 21:18, 23;
Mat. 15:9


Why? For the same reason, Dr. Bob asked KJVO* people at...
Definitions of KJV Only

...to not use the words, "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc., when referring to the modern bibles and their adherents, I would guess.

That is as good a guess as I can make on this one.

Dr. Bob's rule;

#9. Certain terms are off-limits in this forum.
For example:

1. The KJVO crowd will not refer to the Modern Versions as "perversions," "satanic," "devil's bibles," etc...nor call those that use them "Bible correctors," "Bible doubters," etc.

*(I am a #2.5 KJVO on his list at: Eleven Simple Rules for Posting)

"KJVO #2 "I BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING GREEK/HEBREW TEXT
OF THE KJV IS BEST"

"This group believes that the MT (Majority Text) or the TR (Textus Receptus) -- even though there are obvious differences in the two -- are "superior" to all other Greek documents and more closely reflect the original autographs. They do not believe that the TR or the Majority Text is perfect in any one printed copy. They believe that the King James Version, based on this text, is the clearest and most accurate translation that we have in English today."

Then, in the second half of Dr. Bob's #3;

"They consider any English translation from "inferior" Greek texts of W/H (Wescott & Hort) or UBS/Nestle-Aland (United Bible Society) as to be sub-standard and inaccurate."

con't

 

We do not fellowship with churches or receive for membership those who believe in an Univ church. It doesn't exist was man's invention during the Reformation and has never been in the writings of Jesus, the Apostles, or in their heads, or in the Bible.

The Headship of Jesus over each of His local churches is usurped by the 'authority' of the 'true church', as people (blasphemously) call that SUPERNATURAL EVIL NOTHINGNESS PHENOMENA when it is only a figment of Satan's imagination.

All the talk of "Jesus is the Head of His church", etc., etc., when people are really referring to the Kingdom of God is bunk and there is no place for untaught people in the Lord's churches when it comes to what is termed, Church Truth.

It is one more sharp Satanic-devised misinterpretation/ misunderstanding.

I can talk all I want with people, but He called me to preach the Gospel, not to try to make Univ church believers, into local church-only believers.

The first step of that would be for someone to be shown by God what a church is, from the Bible. I can put the souls of people under the teaching of the Eternal Word of God, but it is God Who must give the increase.

When do we see that? It happened in me is all I know about that right now.

Not a point of fellowship. I am Amillennial. My home church is Pre-trib. I consider all talk of the word 'mill' and anything related to it (except the misnomer, "Amillennialism!!!!", which I do not care for at all, either, really) as being worthless and dung. No need to mention anything about them. They are pure waste and unintelligible, and if it weren't for the need of the Spirit to show Amillennialism to them, unintelligent, also. Why not say it? I'm all in, now, just about.

Do I proselytize my case among church members and cause a ruckus that Satan could use? No, for that reason. We have UNITY, although not all of us agree on every point of Doctrine.

Visitors who hold to Doctrines we do hold a strong position on are welcome to "just set down and watch (learn)".

That quote is from the black preacher who told the young fellow, before he preached, "It's Friday, but Sunday's Coming". He said, "you just sit back and watch..."

We don't 'pass the plate', but our treasury is "packed down, shaken together, and running over". Besides all the money my pastor's wife prints for us... ha ha.

We have been taught "the tithe" and faithfully do it into a little box in the hallway where the men greet everyone (and ignore those that are giving into the little box, other than when I tell them they are "worshipping the Lord". "There you go, worshipping the Lord"!!

Never heard of "Grace giving". Sounds good to my flesh, though.

There are a lot of varieties of Bibles these days, too, aren't there? Not to speak of the immense number of different religions claiming the 'Christian' name.

God is not the author of confusion. Satan is. And he has been mentioned in this post more than once. For a reason.

When others have gone out from us, they often hold onto the 'Baptist' name.

The idea is, what did we both believe before the split? Since we remain and are still holding for the same thing, does that make us wrong?

You better go ahead and ask, "Are we lost?" And then, what else? Go ahead. "Are they lost?" Might be, buddy. Dunno. One example would be 'Baptists' who are quite prominent that came up with the bright idea of having vehement, vicious, ruthless hatred for the Gospel. And against preaching the Gospel. In spite of saying they follow a Sovereign God. They just don't do as He says and will continue on calling themselves 'Baptist'.

I/ we can't tell anyone what to believe.

All kinds and varieties take the Baptist name, as you said, Penacostal, Reformers (which we are not, because we do not take the position that we came from Catholicism, and btw they would not be considered for fellowship or membership...), or Baptist Muslims, for that matter (no, I don't know of any, I'm just harping, because I like to harp, I guess).

You tell me.

If we are not the true Baptists, we still take a very strong, serious, position that Jesus Built His Kind of Church Assembly, that His churches, therefore, have a Divine Origin, that the Authority in Baptism has a Divine Origin, that the Lord's Supper has a Divine Origin, and that the Bible has a Divine Origin, all of which we believe God has Perpetuated and Preserved, because the Holy Spirit is Big enough to Persevere in those endeavors.

Where is that true church, then, that we at least see in the Bible? if it is not us? and all those who have believed as we do throughout New Testament Christian History?

So, if we begin with the assumption and theory for a model that the above is true, based on the inspired Bible testimony, where is the 'true church'? Have you ever spent a weekend on your knees, fasting and praying that God would Show you?

You already know the Catholic 'church' is not it and you could go down through many more that have their human origins. Why don't the Baptists?

The name doesn't need to mess anyone up. Ana-baptists go all the way back to Jesus, if you want to use that term for those who believed like Jesus and, for them if and when, they needed to re-baptize.

You have to begin with a 'belief by faith' that "Jesus Built His Kind of church" and despite the tens of millions of saints martyred, by The Great Whore and her Harlot daughters, for standing for her, she still stands as a Lighthouse and Candlestick shining light into darkness, as the pillar and ground of the truth, and a habitation of God through the Spirit, where His saints He has called to habitually congregate together AND are added, by Him, to His churches and fitly framed together, by Him, into those local bodies the bring Glory to God in His churches THROUGHOUT ALL AGES.

 

Was Roger Williams a (real) Baptist?

 

Of course, there are points of fellowship. There is such a thing as Spiritual Adultery, you know. Taught throughout the bible. God does not accept just any manmade attempts at worship and has stuck some dead over it.

If we fellowship with a group that takes baptism from baby baptizers, for example, we are agreeing with that practice of that 'church' of baby baptism and we happen not to.

Don't know where that was said, but we are not afraid of the Bible.

What is somebody going to say that we do not go by the Bible on? Supernatural Miraculous Gifts to Heal, as the Apostles had. Many 'pray that we will receive the gifts'. Good. The first stop if we get them is St. Jude Hospital for Children. Exactly where they ought to be if they have them.

The Lord's churches are not a tit-for-tat proposition. There is such thing as The New Testament Pattern and that is it.

My position, as stated, is that I believe the KJV to be superior to and based on extremely more dependable and definitives texts than those attempting from day one to bridge the gap between Apostate Christianity and the Occult, which they have fully succeeded in doing.

We have plenty of Spanish-speaking missionaries, along with other languages. What underlying texts are you saying their Spanish version goes by.

Are you going to say I am prejudiced, too? And never ask how much money I have given to the causes of black Christians.

You're welcome, big guy.

It's called "answering questions that were not even asked".

 

Nicolaitans?