Featured Who were the First Baptists?

This is a wonderful small booklet about contending for "the faith", which all Christians are duty-bound to do.

It does this without mentioning the name, "baptist" and may be worth checking out.

"Although this study does not specify a preferred denomination, it does provide the reader with a framework of clear Biblical principles that serve as a guide to identify the essential 6 characteristics of Biblical New Testament Christianity."

https://files.secure.website/wscfus/3107401/uploads/TheFaithBook.pdf

excerpt: "Diagnostic Conclusion".

"The following is a list of diagnostic questions to help guide you in the proper application of the principles set forth in this booklet.

"1. Did Christ authorize any church to preach another gospel (Gal. 1:8-9) other than the gospel He preached (Jn. 3:16)?

"If not, then why should anyone recognize the authority of any denomination or church that does preach another gospel?

"How does Paul respond to those who preach "another gospel"?

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

"As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preaches any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. - Gal. 1:8-9

"2. Did Christ authorize any church to administer another baptism other than the one which is according to the counsel of God (Lk. 7:29-30) and administered by Christ (Jn. 4:1-2)?

"If not, then why should anyone publicly identify with such administrators who administer another kind of baptism?

"3. Did Christ authorize any church to carry out the Great Commission other than a church of like faith and order with Him in the same gospel, same baptism, and same faith and practice?

"If not, then why recognize any group of people as a "church of Christ" who are not like faith and order with Christ?

"4. Did Christ authorize any church to reproduce disciples or churches other than those of like faith and order with Him?

"Then this is the only possible kind of baptism at the time the Great Commission was given, as no other kind existed when it was given.

"This is the only possible kind he can say "I HAVE commanded.

"This is the only kind that is truly "Christ-ian" or Christ-like, as Jesus never submitted to any other baptism.

Who is responsible for producing such churches and their doctrines (1 Tim. 4:1; Acts 20:29-30; Rev.18:4)?

"Who is responsible for such confusion (1 Cor. 14:33; Mt. 13:39)?

"5. Did Christ authorize anyone to teach another system of faith other than the system of faith that "was once delivered to the saints" by Christ in the Great Commission?

"Wouldn't another system of faith produce another kind of disciples other than disciples of Christ?

"Why should any sincere Christian want to be a follower of some other Master or a product of some other discipleship program?

"The answers to the above questions will limit your definition of what is a true New Testament congregation."

 

A distinction without a difference ... (imho)

Why are "Baptists" called Baptists?

• Because they baptize (so anyone that has never 'dunked' another is not a Baptist)
• Because they were baptized (so conversion of someone physically unable to be immersed disqualifies them from being a Baptist)
• Because they believe in CREDOBAPTISM (as two sides of the same coin) as John did [Matthew 3:14].

 

OTOH, the distinction conveys a big difference. John the Baptist baptized with water as a declaration of repentance, Mark 1:4. That does not suggest in the slightest he held to the Baptist Doctrinal Distinctives!

 

Been there done that. As for the history of "grape-juicers", that dates back pre-Prohibition to the Temperance Movement of the late 1800s when a Methodist doctor named James Welch came up with the idea of pasteurizing grape juice to halt the fermentation process. He initially sold the product as "Non-Alcoholic Wine" with the plan that it would be used as a substitute for fermented wine in observance of the Lord's Supper.

It seems to be the hardline Reformed in my experience that get really legalistic over the alcoholic content of what is served during the Lord's Supper, the ones that think the Westminster Confession should be the 67th book of the Bible.

 

Simple, Juice in the Bible was not pasteurized.

See Jesus' teaching on wine skins, use of old versus new.

 

Point taken.

To which I'd also add that in the Levant of that time period, it was probably a good thing that it wasn't! The wine was necessary to purify the water!

 

Never heard a reformer make an issue of it