I like the way I think, too (ha) But seriously though, Christ did say that the gates of Hell shall not prevail agianst His Church, didn't he? That means it has always been here, not revived sometime in the past by Robert Smith. Christ is our preserver, not man. The name may be new, but the sysem of Doctrines that we hold to and beieve is not.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do Baptists go all the way back to the apostles?
- Thread starter FundamentalBaptist02
- Start date
Tom Butler
New Member
Seems to me that a lot of folks reject Baptist perpetuity for a couple of reasons.
One, it's one of the tenets of Landmarkism, and it it's Landmark it must be wrong. So we tarnish such a view by saying it's similar to Catholicism, who also claim perpetuity.
Two, perpetuity conflicts with dispensationalism, which holds that the church was formed on the Day of Pentecost, not during Jesus earthly ministry.
Yet, such a view of perpetutity (and even succession)was not only common, it was predominate among Baptist 150 years ago.
If you want to read what some of the greatest Baptist theologians held on this subject, I recommend Ben Stratton's Yahoo website. Ben was a frequent contributor to the BB under the name JR Graves.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/
Type perpetuity into the search engine and it will give you a bunch of stuff. Like this quote from Joe T. Odle, who edited the Mississippi Baptist Record, and pastored a number of churches, including the one where I am a member (East Baptist, Paducah) 70 years ago.
New Testament churches must have four things true concerning their origin and doctrine. (1) They must have the right founder - Jesus Christ (2) They must have been founded in the right place - in Palestine, where Christ lived. (3) They must have been founded at the right time - during the earthly ministry of Jesus. (4) They must be teaching the doctrines the Lord gave his church in the New Testament.
Churches which cannot meet these conditions can hardly be the churches the Lord established. Can any churches meet such requirements?
Odle says only Baptist churches can. Odle again:
They believe that their churches are New Testament churches because of there doctrines, their organization, and their practices. Many of them also believe that Baptists have a historical relationship with churches in very age since Christ."
One, it's one of the tenets of Landmarkism, and it it's Landmark it must be wrong. So we tarnish such a view by saying it's similar to Catholicism, who also claim perpetuity.
Two, perpetuity conflicts with dispensationalism, which holds that the church was formed on the Day of Pentecost, not during Jesus earthly ministry.
Yet, such a view of perpetutity (and even succession)was not only common, it was predominate among Baptist 150 years ago.
If you want to read what some of the greatest Baptist theologians held on this subject, I recommend Ben Stratton's Yahoo website. Ben was a frequent contributor to the BB under the name JR Graves.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LandmarkSouthernBaptist/
Type perpetuity into the search engine and it will give you a bunch of stuff. Like this quote from Joe T. Odle, who edited the Mississippi Baptist Record, and pastored a number of churches, including the one where I am a member (East Baptist, Paducah) 70 years ago.
New Testament churches must have four things true concerning their origin and doctrine. (1) They must have the right founder - Jesus Christ (2) They must have been founded in the right place - in Palestine, where Christ lived. (3) They must have been founded at the right time - during the earthly ministry of Jesus. (4) They must be teaching the doctrines the Lord gave his church in the New Testament.
Churches which cannot meet these conditions can hardly be the churches the Lord established. Can any churches meet such requirements?
Odle says only Baptist churches can. Odle again:
They believe that their churches are New Testament churches because of there doctrines, their organization, and their practices. Many of them also believe that Baptists have a historical relationship with churches in very age since Christ."
Brother Bob
New Member
Well, I had never read him but he sure told it the way we three been telling it.:thumbs:New Testament churches must have four things true concerning their origin and doctrine. (1) They must have the right founder - Jesus Christ (2) They must have been founded in the right place - in Palestine, where Christ lived. (3) They must have been founded at the right time - during the earthly ministry of Jesus. (4) They must be teaching the doctrines the Lord gave his church in the New Testament.
Churches which cannot meet these conditions can hardly be the churches the Lord established. Can any churches meet such requirements?
Jarthur001
Active Member
Here is a idea...if you and USMC and Bob are so sure of this, it must be easy to prove. Does your faith rest on this? If you find this is not true, will you no longer believe in God?Tom Butler said:USMC671, I like the way you think.
That's the reason Baptists aren't protestants. We were here before they were.
I have nothing at all against Landmark believes. Landmarkers are very sound in doctrine, and hold to Calvinism just as I. But, they are wrong about history.
This is a crazy statement..and show lack of understanding the facts..
That's the reason Baptists aren't protestants.
I would be glad to see proof. I have asked 2 times...still nothing but pats on the back from others. Come now...lets prove this
Where is another silly statement....
We were here before they were.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
still looking for some proof of this idea.Brother Bob said:Well, I had never read him but he sure told it the way we three been telling it.:thumbs:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Seems to me that a lot of folks reject Baptist perpetuity for a couple of reasons.
Maybe people like the truth over a dream.
Or maybe there are other views. Maybe its not just Catholicism VS Landmarkism.One, it's one of the tenets of Landmarkism, and it it's Landmark it must be wrong. So we tarnish such a view by saying it's similar to Catholicism, who also claim perpetuity.
Just 2?Two, perpetuity conflicts with dispensationalism, which holds that the church was formed on the Day of Pentecost, not during Jesus earthly ministry.
And before that, many held that the world was flat.Yet, such a view of perpetutity (and even succession)was not only common, it was predominate among Baptist 150 years ago.
How about some proof?If you want to read what some of the greatest Baptist theologians held on this subject, I recommend Ben Stratton's Yahoo website. Ben was a frequent contributor to the BB under the name JR Graves.
Brother Bob
New Member
I would have to deny my faith to say we don't go all the way back to Christ and I use the Scriptures as proof for we preach what Jesus did. How much more proof do you want.How about some proof?
Jarthur001
Active Member
In other words, your faith is based on this idea of a Baptist Church has always been, since the time of Christ? With no proof, it is only a idea based on how you want to believe. This is "bobs" big idea. This means each church can make their own claim. The "Church of God" can also make that claim based on the way your handle it. I do not agree, but they think they are the "true" church as well. JW claim to be linked to the 1st church. Do they have history or their side?Brother Bob said:I would have to deny my faith to say we don't go all the way back to Christ and I use the Scriptures as proof for we preach what Jesus did. How much more proof do you want.
Brother Bob
New Member
Not Bob's way even though I chose to walk in it and that is because I studied the Scriptures and found this way to be the way of the Lord and "believed that Jesus is the Christ". He raised my feet from the mar of the clay and placed them on a rock and He is that Rock. Bob will die but this way will carry on until the second coming of Christ and even farther for it will be the only thing that will stand in the end is the way of the Lord.In other words, your faith is based on this idea of a Baptist Church has always been, since the time of Christ? With no proof
You would rather have your proof from the writings of men and I take mine from the writings of our Lord. I can tell you religions that sure did not come from Christ. Did you see them worshipping "Mary" the mother of Jesus in the Scriptures as a way to the Son? Well, you can take our faith and line it up with Christ. Greatest proof known to man for it is witnesseth by the Holy Spirit. amen,
The Scriptures say that His Spirit bears witness with our Spirit that we are the children of God. If I have God for a witness James, how much more do I need.
Hasn't God witnesseth to you that you are in the right church, and there is only one True and living Church?
Look how many writings they threw out and did not put them in the Bible James. Would you rather have one of them rather than the witness of the Spirit of God?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
How do you know this happened?Did you see them worshipping "Mary" the mother of Jesus in the Scriptures as a way to the Son? Well, you can take our faith and line it up with Christ.
Yes. I just disagree with your views. But there again, My faith is not based on history, but rather the Bible. Each and every person, church and preacher could be wrong and it would not matter to me. I believe the Bible for it is truth, not because of a church or a writer outside of the Bible.Hasn't God witnesseth to you that you are in the right church, and there is only one True and living Church?
Having said that, I have heard all the landmark claims and I have found them to be false. Now I do not want to make the Landmark brothers mad. As you know, I am a Calvinist. My Landmark Brothers are Calvinist as well. I am willing to change if one would show proof. If this is going to make you or anyone else weak in the faith, I will drop it now. Like I said, it is not that big a deal to me, for it is not a church but a BOOK I believe in.
Are you saying that we do not have the whole Bible?Look how many writings they threw out and did not put them in the Bible James.
Brother Bob
New Member
Didn't happen. I was referring to some religions today that do not have the same faith that they did in the days of our Lord.Did you see them worshipping "Mary" the mother of Jesus in the Scriptures as a way to the Son? Well, you can take our faith and line it up with Christ. How do you know this happened?
No, but there were other writing that were rejected for the Bible even some that are in the Catholic Bible or Latin but are not in the KJV. You know what I meant, I know you are more educated than that. This is someone else's post, don't know if completely true but know at least part of it is the LXXX.Look how many writings they threw out and did not put them in the Bible James. Are you saying that we do not have the whole Bible?
Until the 1500s, all Christians accepted the OT of the apostles and early church, the Greek translation called the Septuagint (LXX). If you'd like to read the books that Protestants eventually cut out of the Bible, just pick up a copy of the 1611 King James Version--they're in there. There are a couple of publishers that have the 1611 KJV in print--one that's inexpensive is printed by Thomas Nelson. There's a wonderful prophecy of Jesus' atoning death in one of the books.
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother Bob
New Member
You don't make me weak at all James; I am glad it is a BOOK that you believe in too and I suspect it takes you all he way back to Christ and farther. amen,:godisgood:Having said that, I have heard all the landmark claims and I have found them to be false. Now I do not want to make the Landmark brothers mad. As you know, I am a Calvinist. My Landmark Brothers are Calvinist as well. I am willing to change if one would show proof. If this is going to make you or anyone else weak in the faith, I will drop it now. Like I said, it is not that big a deal to me, for it is not a church but a BOOK I believe in.
"The faith Once Delivered unto the Saints".. What faith is that? What did Christ mean when He said, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church" ?
He is either a liar or He has preserved His Church for over 2,000 years. If he has not, then, we all are part of a man made organization. If Christ has preserved His church, which he has, then it has been in existence from His time until now. What Doctrine to the Baptists hold to today, that are contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles? None! A true church is more than a building and a local assembly, it is people saved by the blood, baptized for membership and obedience, taught the Scriptures as the Apostles and Jesus taught. It is not in the name, (though the name of Baptist is very important for identity), but it is in the doctrines in which we hold to, even to today. What other group legitimately does this, none.
He is either a liar or He has preserved His Church for over 2,000 years. If he has not, then, we all are part of a man made organization. If Christ has preserved His church, which he has, then it has been in existence from His time until now. What Doctrine to the Baptists hold to today, that are contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles? None! A true church is more than a building and a local assembly, it is people saved by the blood, baptized for membership and obedience, taught the Scriptures as the Apostles and Jesus taught. It is not in the name, (though the name of Baptist is very important for identity), but it is in the doctrines in which we hold to, even to today. What other group legitimately does this, none.
Tom Butler
New Member
More from Ben Stratton's website:
“We are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novations, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussities, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers . . . present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life.” Charles Spurgeon in New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 7, p. 613
Did Spurgeon just make this up out of thin air?
“We are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novations, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussities, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers . . . present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life.” Charles Spurgeon in New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 7, p. 613
Did Spurgeon just make this up out of thin air?
Tom Butler
New Member
Jarthur001 said:Still looking for some proof of this idea.
Another quote from Ben Stratton's website
George W. McDaniel was President of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1930’s and pastored the First Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia for 25 years.
“The first Baptist churches were the churches of the New Testament. It is not necessary to prove succession. It is of more importance to identify our churches today with those of the first century than it is to trace the history through the centuries when there was no recorded history.
Brother Bob
New Member
Looks like Spurgeon did have a linage of History according to the above statement.“We are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novations, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussities, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers . . . present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life.” Charles Spurgeon in New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 7, p. 613
Jarthur001
Active Member
Hello Brother in Christ...USMC71 said:"The faith Once Delivered unto the Saints".. What faith is that? What did Christ mean when He said, "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against His Church" ?
He is either a liar or He has preserved His Church for over 2,000 years. If he has not, then, we all are part of a man made organization. If Christ has preserved His church, which he has, then it has been in existence from His time until now. What Doctrine to the Baptists hold to today, that are contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Apostles? None! A true church is more than a building and a local assembly, it is people saved by the blood, baptized for membership and obedience, taught the Scriptures as the Apostles and Jesus taught. It is not in the name, (though the name of Baptist is very important for identity), but it is in the doctrines in which we hold to, even to today. What other group legitimately does this, none.
We are getting into theology now, but I do not mind. Since this is a "history" thread, one would hope to find history. Sad to say, it is not there. It has been asked many times by this poster to show proof in a history setting. Still nothing.
If the BB will let me take up the theology view for a few post I will be glad. So far this is all that we have seen anyway. One verse has been posted that each church "under the sun" uses to claim they are THAT church. Now I happen to believe the Baptist faith is the right view. I think it is the best example to the early church that we have. However, it is not based on this passage. It is based on the doctrine that the Baptist faith holds as I read the Bible. Nonetheless we shall look at theology being this is what all are basing their claims on.
Lets review the passsage...
13When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am[/B]?
14And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18And 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.
19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
20Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
What is "it"..what is the "rock"?
Jarthur001
Active Member
Hello Brother Tom Butler,Tom Butler said:More from Ben Stratton's website:
“We are the old apostolic Church that have never bowed to the yoke of princes yet; we, known among men, in all ages, by various names, such as Donatists, Novations, Paulicians, Petrobrussians, Cathari, Arnoldists, Hussities, Waldenses, Lollards, and Anabaptists, have always contended for the purity of the Church, and her distinctness and separation from human government. Our fathers . . . present to us, their children, an unbroken line which comes legitimately from the apostles, not through the filth of Rome, not by the manipulations of prelates, but by the Divine life.” Charles Spurgeon in New Park Street Pulpit, Vol. 7, p. 613
Did Spurgeon just make this up out of thin air?
I know of this statement. I happen to know that in fact Spurgeon did say this. I love Spurgeon as you may know. Before I start, I need to ask, is this the proof that you have that Baptist are ...well as you put it..."That's the reason Baptists aren't protestants".?
Also, it matters to me, if you are in search for the truth. Is your faith based on this history view point? If so, I will stop now. I do not want to say anything that will under-mind your faith. This is not saying I will. But history is not the doctrines of the church, so I will not fight to the end on this. Brother Bob knows full well what I mean for he and I beat each other up at times, in doctrine.
I'm guess I'm saying....is it ok to be wrong in history and still be saved by the blood of Christ? I think it is ok to be wrong in history. If you do not agree with this I have nothing more to say.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jarthur001
Active Member
Tom Butler said:Another quote from Ben Stratton's website
George W. McDaniel was President of the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1930’s and pastored the First Baptist Church of Richmond, Virginia for 25 years.
“The first Baptist churches were the churches of the New Testament. It is not necessary to prove succession. It is of more importance to identify our churches today with those of the first century than it is to trace the history through the centuries when there was no recorded history.
I can nearly agree 100% with this statement
Jarthur001
Active Member
Brother Bob said:Didn't happen. I was referring to some religions today that do not have the same faith that they did in the days of our Lord.
No, but there were other writing that were rejected for the Bible even some that are in the Catholic Bible or Latin but are not in the KJV. You know what I meant, I know you are more educated than that. This is someone else's post, don't know if completely true but know at least part of it is the LXXX.
Until the 1500s, all Christians accepted the OT of the apostles and early church, the Greek translation called the Septuagint (LXX). If you'd like to read the books that Protestants eventually cut out of the Bible, just pick up a copy of the 1611 King James Version--they're in there. There are a couple of publishers that have the 1611 KJV in print--one that's inexpensive is printed by Thomas Nelson. There's a wonderful prophecy of Jesus' atoning death in one of the books.
Hold on .....this is beyond the history thread, but are you saying that the hidden books are part of the Bible? start a thread where we can talk about this....