The true nature of the true church of Christ

[The Biblicist]

The Reformation Anabaptist Confessions

If one examines the Anabaptist confessions, it is clear that the only kind of present church they embraced was the kind that received only baptized members who professed Christ.

Robert Friedmann is a recognized authority on the beliefs of Anabaptist. He summarizes the Anabaptist ecclesiology in the following words:

4)Ecclesiology.The Corpus Christi is here stressed over against the Corpus Christianorum. In other words, the brotherhood of dedicated Christians stands here against the body of all baptized Christians, saints and sinners. The Catholics as well as the Reformers accepted the Corpus Christianorum, the concept of a Christian society at large, hence their opposition to the idea of an exclusive Corpus Christi[anum].

The church (Gemeinde, alsoGemein, Gemeinschaft) [community] and the brotherhood are with the Anabaptists one and the same, both a sacred and a secular body without separation of these two functions. No one can ever reach God except together with his brother. The Anabaptist church was once well-called the "fellowship of committed disciples," and the Lord's Supper among them is the external symbol of this fellowship (occasionally called the "fellowship at the Lord's Table"). Brotherhood is more than a concern for the other's salvation, it is Gemeinschaft, community, both in things spiritual and worldly. It is essentially a love-relation (hence it implies more than merely an "ethic" of love).

At the same time this church is a disciplined church, a church which insists on supervision by the bishop or Vorsteher, and naturally insists on the ban. More than once it was called a "church of order" (cf.Mennonite Encyclopedia, I, 595-a), the term itself occurring time and again in Anabaptist tracts. Of course, the world of the children of God must be a world of order, and not one of confusion or arbitrariness. Whether Grebel or Riedemann, Marpeck or Menno Simons or Dirk Philips, they all stressed this element of order and discipline as part of the true church of God. It belongs as a second element to the first one of brotherly love and cooperation and sharing. – Robert Friedmann, Anabaptist Theology

http://www.anabaptistchurch.org/anabaptist_theology.htm 05/29/16


In the vast majority of Anabaptist confessions the only kind of church mentioned is a visible body of baptized believers. There are only two exceptions. In one confession there is the mention of the glory church consisting of all the elect. In a Mennonite confession dated well after the time of Luther there can be found the Reformer’s view of the church. Reformation “Waldenses” had been converted to Presbyterianism. However, all other Anabaptists confessions make no mention of a universal church of any kind. For example:

The Discipline of the Church – Moravian Anabaptists - 1527


When brethren and sisters are together, being one body and one bread in the Lord and of one mind, then they shall keep the Lord's Supper as a memorial of the Lord's death (Matt.26; Mark 14; Luke 22; I Cor.11), whereby each one shall be admonished to become conformed to the Lord in the obedience of the Father (Phil.2,3; I Pet.2,4; Rom.8; I John 2--Obedience: Rom.2; Phil.2; II Cor.2,10; II Thess.1; I Pet.1).


Schleitheim Confession – Swiss Brethren 1527


Third. In the breaking of bread we are of one mind and are agreed [as follows]: All those who wish to break one bread in remembrance of the broken body of Christ, and all who wish to drink of one drink as a remembrance of the shed blood of Christ, shall be united beforehand by baptism in one body of Christ which is the church of God and whose Head is Christ.



Ridemann's Rechenschaft, - Hutterite - 1540


I. DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE SPIRIT


An assembly of children of God who have separated themselves from all unclean things is the church. It is gathered together, has being, and is kept by the Holy Spirit. Sinners may not be members unless and until they have repented of their sins. The essence of the church is its bearing of the Light; it is a lantern of righteousness in a world of unbelief, darkness, and blindness. It is a pillar and ground of the truth, which is conformed, ratified, and brought to pass in her by the Holy Spirit. The "power and key" to forgive sins which was received by Christ from the Father is given to the church as a whole and not to individual persons. In its nature the church is spiritual, but concretely it is known as the pure sacred community. Church assembly and community are equated together.

The Moravian Anabaptist – 1545



the Holy Ghost…..which Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son and is, with the Son and Father in power and being, one God, who still today assembles the churches of Christ or his congregation - Emphasis mine



Amsterdam Confession – Dutch Anabaptist - 1611


Article X – a company of faithful people, separated from the world by the word and the Spirit of God being knit unto the Lord, and one unto another, by baptism, upon their own confession of faith and sins.


Article XI – That though in respect of Christ the Church be one, yet it consisteth of divers particular congregations, even so many as there shall be in the world; every one which congregations, though they be but two or three, have Christ given them with all the means of salvation, are the body of Christ…


Article XIII – That every church is to receive in all their members by baptism, upon confession of faith and sins, wrought by the preaching of the gospel according to the primitive institution and practice. And, therefore, churches after any other manner, or of any other persons, are not according to Christ’s testament



The Dordrecht Confession – Dutch Mennonite - 1632

VIII. Of the Church of Christ


We believe in, and confess a visible church of God, namely, those who, as has been said before, truly repent and believe, and are rightly baptized; who are one with God in heaven, and rightly incorporated into the communion of the saints here on earth. These we confess to be the chosen generation, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, who are declared to be the bride and wife of Christ, yea, children and heirs of everlasting life, a tent, tabernacle, and habitation of God in the Spirit, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, of which Jesus Christ Himself is declared to be the cornerstone (upon which His church is built). This church of the living God, which He has acquired, purchased, and redeemed with His own precious blood; with which, according to His promise, He will be and remain always, even unto the end of the world, for consolation and protection, yea, will dwell and walk among them, and preserve them, so that no floods or tempests, nay, not even the gates of hell, shall move or prevail against them-this church, we say, may be known by their Scriptural faith, doctrine, love, and godly conversation, as, also, by the fruitful observance, practice, and maintenance of the true ordinances of Christ, which He so highly enjoined upon His disciples. I Cor. 12; I Pet. 2.9; John 3.29; Rev. 19.7; Titus 3:6, 7; Eph. 2:19-21; Matt. 16.18; I Pet. 1.18, 19; Matt. 28.20; II Cor. 6:16; Matt. 7:25.

 

[The Biblicist]

Early English Baptist Confessions

Significantly, none of the earliest Baptist confessions acknowledge any other church but the concrete, abstract (generic, institutional, collective) and future glory kind.

The early particular Baptists in London in their very first confession of faith claimed no church but a local body of baptized believers:

The London Baptist Confession - 1646

XXXIII.
Jesus Christ hath here on earth a [manifestation of His] spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king. – The London Confession of Faith, 1646 – Emphasis mine


They rightly viewed the church as a “manifestation” or public representation of the kingdom, rather than equal to the kingdom.

Thomas Bakewell, a Presbyterian divine, directly accused those who composed the 1646 Baptist Confession of Faith for denying the Protestant universal invisible church theory. Bakewell’s charge is,


“you believe that this purchased redeemed Church of Christ is visible, and a company of Saints called and separated from the world by the Word and Spirit of God to the visible profession of faith, and the Gospel, and baptized in the faith, and joined to the Lord, and to each other by mutual agreement in practical enjoyment of the Ordinances commanded by Christ as their Head and King….but how dare you publish to the world that those whom Christ has purchased and redeemed, are visible, making profession of faith and the Gospel, and baptized and joined to the Lord, and to each other in practical enjoyment of the Ordinances….then you say you are ignorant of any invisible church or house of God.”[1] – Emphasis mine


Benjamin Coxe in the appendix attached to the 1646 reprint of the 1644 confession of faith defended this local church only position and yet at the same time clearly stated that the Baptists believed there were saved people outside of their churches as unbaptized believers (Presbyterians and others):

XVI. Although a true believer, whether baptized, or unbaptized, be in the state of salvation, and shall certainly be saved: - Benjamin Coxe, The 1646 London Baptist Confession – Appendix


The Faith and Practise of Thirty Congregations Gathered According to the Primitive Pattern – 1651 – The General Baptists


51. That the only foundation of the Church of God, is the Doctrines of the Apostles or Prophets, as they spring from Jesus Christ the chiefe corner stone, whereon this or anyother people are to be built together as the house of God; Eph. 2. 20, 21.


52. That the chief or only ends of a people baptised according to the counsel of God, when they meet together as the congregation or fellowship of Christ, are, or ought to be, for to walk sutably; or to give up themselves unto a holy conformity to all the Laws or Ordinances of Jesus Christ, answerable to the gifts and graces received, improving them for the glory of God, and the edification of each other in love, Eph. 4. 15, 16.


Neither does the particular Baptist “Midland” Confession of Faith in 1655 or the “Somerset” Confession of 1657 mention any kind of universal invisible church.

The English Baptist confessions and associational meetings between 1641 and 1686 used “the church” abstractly, to convey the idea of a collective unity of all Baptist churches of like faith and order on earth at any given moment. This is close to the generic use of that term. The early English Baptists used it this way in their associational minutes which record their meetings up to 1660. They spoke of the “assemblyes of Zion”.

That persons soe baptized ought to walk together by free consent as God shall give opperturnitie in distinct churches or assemblyes of Zion continuing in the apostles doctrine and fellowship and breaking of bread and prayers…. White, B.R. ed. Association of The Particular Baptists of England, Wales and Ireland to 1660, “Part 1, South Wales and Midlands” p. 20 - emphasis mine

To them, “Mount Zion” expressed the collective unity of all churches that were like faith and order. Significantly, they denied all state churches (Rome and Protestants) were included in “Mount Zion” (Ibid. pp. 154, 169). They also denied that “disorderly” churches, or churches that were not “rightly constituted” (e.g. John Bunyan’s mixed membership church) were in this “Zion.” This concept they also called “The church in generall.”

Because in respect to union in Christ there is like relation betwixt the particular churches each towards other, as there is betwixt particular members of one church. For the churches of Christ doe all make up but one bodye or church in generall under Christ their head, as Eph. 1:22f., Col. 1.24, Eph. 5:23., I Cor. 12.13 ff., as particular members make up one particular church under the same head, Christ and all the particular assemblyes are but one Mount Syon. – Ibid. “Part 3, Abingdon Association” p. 128 - Emphasis mine

This concept of “the church in general,” or “Mount Zion,” consisting of all churches of like faith and order in aggregate, was the position of the vast majority of Associational Baptists in America (those who embraced the Philadelphia Baptist Confession of Faith and New Hampshire Confession of Faith) and can be found among American Baptists right up to the Landmark movement in the 1850’s.

Dear Brethren, — Your letters have excited in us mingled emotions of joy and sorrow; while we rejoice at the general stability and soundness in the faith of our churches, it is to be lamented that error has made partial ravages in our Zion. – Jesse Mercer, History of the Georgia Baptist Association, 1838, “circular letter written to the churches in 1805” p. 104, The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. Version 1.0 © 2005 (emphasis mine)



[1] Thomas Bakewell, An Answer of Confutation of Divers Errors Broached and Maintained By the Seven Churches of Anabaptists contained in those Articles of their Confession of Faith Presented to Parliament, and other gross Opinions held by them against the clear light of the gospel, (Imprinter John Downham, 1646)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

There is now so much stuff on this thread that it's difficult to know where to start, but I'll try here:

If any public man, speaking in the senate or in the assembly (τῆς ἐκκλησία) of the people, shall not speak on the subject which is before the house, or shall fail to speak on each proposition separately, or shall speak twice on the same subject in one day, or if he shall speak abusively or slanderously, or shall interrupt the proceedings, or in the midst of the deliberations shall get up and speak on anything that is not in order, or shall shout approval, or shall lay hands on the presiding officer, on adjournment of the assembly or the senate the board of presidents are authorized to report his name to the collectors, with a fine of not more than 50 drachmas for each offence. – Charles Darwin Adams, tran. Aeschines, Against Timarchus (London: Harvard Press, 1919). 1:35

Aeschines was an Athenian orator, and the assembly he's speaking of is the one in Athens, not an institutional one. In the next two extracts, Aeschines is speaking about a specific 'golden crown' which it was proposed should be given to another orator called Demosthenes for his services to the Athenian state. Even the first and third Aristotle extracst is concerning the specific Athenian constitution and therefore the specific Athenian ekklesia. Only in the extract from Aristotle's Politics, might he be using ekklesia in its institutional sense.

Therefore you have by no means proved your case that the abstract institutional sense of ekklesia was ubiquitous in Classical Greek.

More later as I have time.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is now so much stuff on this thread that it's difficult to know where to start, but I'll try here:
Aeschines was an Athenian orator, and the assembly he's speaking of is the one in Athens, not an institutional one. In the next two extracts, Aeschines is speaking about a specific 'golden crown' which it was proposed should be given to another orator called Demosthenes for his services to the Athenian state. Even the first and third Aristotle extracst is concerning the specific Athenian constitution and therefore the specific Athenian ekklesia. Only in the extract from Aristotle's Politics, might he be using ekklesia in its institutional sense.

Therefore you have by no means proved your case that the abstract institutional sense of ekklesia was ubiquitous in Classical Greek.

More later as I have time.

I acknowledged he was an Athenian orator and that he was speaking about the ekklesia at Athens but that is not the point. Just as I acknowledged that Paul was speaking about the ekklesia at Corinth in 1 Cor. 14:19. Yet in both cases, the fact that a specific ekklesia is in view does not deny that in both cases the writers are using the definite singular in the abstract and both are speaking of the ekklesia as an institution = hence abstract institutional usage. In both cases, there is no specified assemblying, meaning no dated session, in the past, present or future being referred but the writers are merely referrencing "the assembly" abstractly. For example, Aeschines was not referring to an actual assembling presently occurring or a specific assembling that had occurred or a specific assembling that was going to occur and neither was Paul's usage in 1 Cor. 14:19. Both are referring to "the assembly" in the abstract sense and both are referring to it as public institution.

So simply because a specific city assembly is in view does not deny the use of the abstract use in reference to that assembly. That is why I took 1 Cor. 14:19 where you can plainly see that even though the context has the specific Corinthian assembly ultimately in view it is still being used abstractly. In other words, Paul was speaking ABOUT the assembly as an assembly, rather than about any specific dated assembly, or one presently in session or a future dated session.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The associational minutes of the Baptists who wrote the 1689 confession make it clear that they had always believed in a yet future glory church in heaven or a church that “consists of the whole number of elect” after the coming of Christ composed of all the redeemed. However, they completely repudiated a mixture of this future church of the elect with a present universal visible church consisting of all true believers on earth including infant members. Sections II-V of the Westminster Confession was designed to promote a mixture of the kingdom and family of God with the visible church of God with its “mixed” membership of infants and adults.


It is the second article of the Baptist Confession where the stark contrasts between the Presbyterian Universal Invisible church theory and the Baptist view of the church begins to be clearly seen.

This is precisely what I have been saying. Did you not read my posts? The early Particular Baptists believed in a Universal Church (1689 Confession, XXVI:I), but they did not agree with the Presbyterian idea of an largely unregenerate visible Church on earth with infants and irregular professors included in it.

You have posted various Anabaptist confessions. I have nothing to say on these. The term 'Anabaptist' covers a large number of disparate groups, but you are right if you are suggesting that the Schleitheim Confession sees all Protestant as well as Romanist believers as outside the true church and baptism as the only entry into the Church, though it is worth mentioning that the earliest Anabaptists 'baptized' by pouring rather than immersion and many of them had heretical views of one sort or another.

The early Particular Baptists denied strongly that they were anything to do with the Anabaptists. This is stated right at the front of the 1644 Confession. The Grandaddy of the PBs, John Spillsbury, in his book, A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme (1643), makes it clear that a church is formed by the church covenant, not by believers' baptism inasmuch as the covenant precedes the sign. He gives the analogy of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace in which the universal Church is the total number of the elect given to Christ in the Everlasting Covenant, and not the total number of people baptized on profession of faith.

Since Spillsbury, along with William Kiffin is usually credited with being a main writer of the 1644 and 1646 Confessions, whatever is written there does not alter the fact that the early PBs did not see baptism as the sine qua non of the church.

In the 1670s, Kiffin had a number of exchanges with John Bunyan concerning Open or Closed communion. From these exchanges, the PB churches split into 'closed' ('Strict & Particular') and 'open' communion, and this continues in England to this day. But the fact that Kiffin took the view that unbaptized people should not receive communion in a Baptist church did not prevent him acknowledging a Universal Church when he signed the 1689 Confession which clearly expresses it.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I acknowledged he was an Athenian orator and that he was speaking about the ekklesia at Athens but that is not the point. Just as I acknowledged that Paul was speaking about the ekklesia at Corinth in 1 Cor. 14:19. Yet in both cases, the fact that a specific ekklesia is in view does not deny that in both cases the writers are using the definite singular in the abstract and both are speaking of the ekklesia as an institution = hence abstract institutional usage.

Well I disagree. In your view just about any mention of an ekklesia can be called 'abstract and institutional.' But although Aeschines was not speaking of a particular session of the Athenian assembly, he was still talking about a particular assembly; he was not talking the Boule, which was the other assembly in Athens- the 'Council of 500'- nor was he talking about assemblies in general; he was talking about the particular ekklesia in Athens.

 

[The Biblicist]

Well I disagree. In your view just about any mention of an ekklesia can be called 'abstract and institutional.'

I carefully defined the abstract use by context which makes no TIME or EVENT restriction but is making a GENERAL statement concerning the ekklesia. 1 Corinthians 14:19 is a clear Biblical illustration which you cannot deny. What "church" is Paul speaking about in 1 Cor. 14:19? The context is applying it to the church at Corinth but it is not restricted by either TIME or a specified EVENT and so it can be applied to "the church" as the New Testament institution w.herever you find a concrete assembly.

"Yet in THE CHURCH I would rather speak...."

These Athenian orators are using "the assembly" in an abstract manner, or talking ABOUT the assembly as the Athenian institution rather than any TIME or EVENT specific session restriction.

But although Aeschines was not speaking of a particular session of the Athenian assembly, he was still talking about a particular assembly; he was not talking the Boule, which was the other assembly in Athens- the 'Council of 500'- nor was he talking about assemblies in general; he was talking about the particular ekklesia in Athens.

Again, is this not true with 1 Cor. 14:19? If not, please explain why?

 

[The Biblicist]

This is precisely what I have been saying. Did you not read my posts? The early Particular Baptists believed in a Universal Church (1689 Confession, XXVI:I),

No they did not! They did not believe in any PRESENT existence of such a church. They believed that such a church only came into existence when "all" the elect had been assembled in glory - thus the glory church. Their following articles demonstrate that the ONLY PRESENT church they believed in was institutional and concrete. They did not believe the Presbyterians or Catholics had any true churches of Christ whatsoever but clearly repudiated their institutions as churches of Christ.

though it is worth mentioning that the earliest Anabaptists 'baptized' by pouring rather than immersion and many of them had heretical views of one sort or another.

That is open to debate. Catholic Preists who were in a transition from Roman Catholicism to the Anabaptist position may have sprinkled, but even those cases are subject to debate. However, can you prove this particular Anabaptist confession originated with heretics?

The early Particular Baptists denied strongly that they were anything to do with the Anabaptists.

A more careful study will demonstrate they are reacting against a particular segment of continental Anabaptists - the Munster Anabaptists - which at that time and I might add, even until today Roman Catholic and Protestant historians charge as being our historical roots. However, if you will read the earliest Baptist historians it will demonstrate they did not deny historical association with all European Anabaptists. Early English Baptist Historians trace British Baptists through Anabaptists coming from Europe in to England as well as through Welch ancestory.

Since Spillsbury, along with William Kiffin is usually credited with being a main writer of the 1644 and 1646 Confessions, whatever is written there does not alter the fact that the early PBs did not see baptism as the sine qua non of the church.

That is simply not true. Spilsbury plainly and explicitly stated that where there is no scriptural baptism there is no scriptural church.

In the 1670s, Kiffin had a number of exchanges with John Bunyan concerning Open or Closed communion. From these exchanges, the PB churches split into 'closed' ('Strict & Particular') and 'open' communion, and this continues in England to this day. But the fact that Kiffin took the view that unbaptized people should not receive communion in a Baptist church did not prevent him acknowledging a Universal Church when he signed the 1689 Confession which clearly expresses it.

Kiffin and those who rightly repudiated assemblies of sprinkled and immersed persons refused to recognize them as true churches of Christ as they did the Protestant and Catholic churches and you know that as it is spelled out plainly in the association minutes. Again, they did not believe in any PRESENT universal church of any kind, but only a contemplated church of all the elect yet to be assembled in glory.

Dr. J.M. Pendleton an openly professed "Landmarker" held to the same glory church position but repudiated any present universal church consisting of all the elect either on earth or in heaven.

 

[The Biblicist]

Martin, we probably won't agree and so lets just agree to disagree agreeably. I just got my marching orders from the Dean and college classes begin the end of September and they have extended my class from a ten week class to a fifteen week seminar and so I have to get busy and produce 15 more class sessions prior to October first. So for the next month this is going to consume my time. I might get back online at times but for the most part I will be burning the candles at both ends trying to be ready for classes to begin.

 

[HankD]

Martin, we probably won't agree and so lets just agree to disagree agreeably. I just got my marching orders from the Dean and college classes begin the end of September and they have extended my class from a ten week class to a fifteen week seminar and so I have to get busy and produce 15 more class sessions prior to October first. So for the next month this is going to consume my time. I might get back online at times but for the most part I will be burning the candles at both ends trying to be ready for classes to begin.

Looking forward to seeing you again B. You certainly do your homework.

HankD

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am happy to leave the discussion for the present time, but I must insist that I am not making these things up as you seem to insinuate. I recommend that you study the Spillsbury book I cited, and here is the preamble to the 1646 Confession:

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.
The early Particular Baptists were most insistent that they were not Anabaptists.

Secondly, Article XXVI:I of the 1689 Confession, 'Of the Church':

The Catholic or Universal Church which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

The early PBs believed in a Universal Church, and it wasn't just a future one. 'Consists:' Present Tense.

William Kiffin signed this document.

For myself, I believe firmly that baptism of believers by immersion is the baptism taught in Scripture, and that those who practise anything different are in error. However, I do not believe that ordinances lie at the heart of the Christian faith (otherwise we are saved by works), and I desire to have fellowship with all those people and churches where the Name of Christ and salvation by Faith Alone are faithfully preached.

Have fun with your classes.

 

[Yeshua1]

First of all, my apologies for taking a while to come back to you on this thread. I have been taken up with writing an article for my own blog. Secondly, I want to say how much I value your contributions to this forum. It is only on ecclesiology that I take issue with you.
I'm afraid I'm not persuaded by this argument. The Lord Jesus was perfectly able to speak of building His churches and indeed, when multiple individual ekklesiai are being described in the NT, the plural is generally used (eg. Acts 9:31; 16:5). But in Matthew 16:18, our Lord is describing His one universal Church, which He also does in Ephesians 1:22-23, which needs to be compared with verse 10: 'That...... He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth.' All Christ's people are one (John 17:20-21), and the universal ekklesia expresses that fact. That unity is not organizational, nor is it based on ordinances. It is based on the election of God (2 Timothy 2:19) and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:1).

Ephesians 5:23-24. 'For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Saviour of the body. Therefore just as the church [singular] is subject to Christ, so let the wives [plural] be to their own husbands..........' In verse 23, there is one 'body' which Christ has saved. In verse 24, a singular 'church' is compared with plural wives. It does not seem that this can be the corporate or institution view which you claim.

Ephesians 5:32. 'This is a great mystery, but I am speaking of Christ and the church.' There is only one bride of Christ, not many. Revelation 21:9. '"Come, and I will show you the bride, the Lamb's wife." And He showed me the great City, the holy Jerusalem....' This cannot be a sort of composite of all the churches, because the purest Gospel churches often have members who are hypocritical, mistaken or deluded in their faith. Also, the Lord has His people isolated in the most unlikely environments. These will be in the city, not outside: 'Outside are dogs, and sorcerers and sexually immoral.....etc.' (Revelation 22:15).

Finally, I do not believe in an invisible church in the way that Presbyterians and Lutherans do; an unregenerate church on earth, and a saved one in heaven Nor do I believe in a visible church with an earthly hierarchy like the Church of Rome. God forbid! Each ekklesia should be as pure as we can make it (1 Corinthians 5:13; 2 Corinthians 11:2; Titus 3:10). But even then, alas, I fear that there will be those who 'have crept in unnoticed' (Jude 4).

The Church of the FirstBorn mentioned in hebrews would have to be comprised of all those saved by God under the New Covenant, so would be the "Church Universal"

 

[HankD]

The Church of the FirstBorn mentioned in hebrews would have to be comprised of all those saved by God under the New Covenant, so would be the "Church Universal"

Agreed Y however I don't like the term "universal" since is has more that one religious support system and subsequent meanings.

There is probably no one word (adjective or adverb) including "institutional" IMO that fully describes the church.
So I use "invisible" (also has drawbacks) with the qualification - the collective of all those born of the Spirit "unseen but by God".

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

I am happy to leave the discussion for the present time, but I must insist that I am not making these things up as you seem to insinuate. I recommend that you study the Spillsbury book I cited, and here is the preamble to the 1646 Confession:

A confession of faith of seven congregations or churches of Christ in London, which are commonly, but unjustly called Anabaptists; published for the vindication of the truth and information of the ignorant; likewise for the taking off those aspersions which are frequently, both in pulpit and print, unjustly cast upon them. Printed at London, Anno 1646.
The early Particular Baptists were most insistent that they were not Anabaptists.

Secondly, Article XXVI:I of the 1689 Confession, 'Of the Church':

The Catholic or Universal Church which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof: and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.

The early PBs believed in a Universal Church, and it wasn't just a future one. 'Consists:' Present Tense.

William Kiffin signed this document.

For myself, I believe firmly that baptism of believers by immersion is the baptism taught in Scripture, and that those who practise anything different are in error. However, I do not believe that ordinances lie at the heart of the Christian faith (otherwise we are saved by works), and I desire to have fellowship with all those people and churches where the Name of Christ and salvation by Faith Alone are faithfully preached.

Have fun with your classes.

As I said, we will have to agree to disagree agreeably as I interpret your quotations in a much broader context and I have read all of Spilsburys written works thoroughly. Until next time.

 

[Yeshua1]

Agreed Y however I don't like the term "universal" since is has more that one religious support system and subsequent meanings.

There is probably no one word (adjective or adverb) including "institutional" IMO that fully describes the church.
So I use "invisible" (also has drawbacks) with the qualification - the collective of all those born of the Spirit "unseen but by God".

HankD

Think that that it would be the saved in the Bride of Christ under the new Covenant....

 

[The Biblicist]

Looking forward to seeing you again B. You certainly do your homework.

HankD

Take care Hank! I'll be checking in now and then when I get weary of writing.

 

[HankD]

Think that that it would be the saved in the Bride of Christ under the new Covenant....

Agreed but I was hearkening back to your statement in Hebrews12:23 RE: the Church.

HankD

 

[The Biblicist]

I am happy to leave the discussion for the present time, but I must insist that I am not making these things up as you seem to insinuate.

I am on a break from course materials and want to respond to your post and finish this thread as time permits. The problem for me in this debate is that I have to find the original sources that I have tucked away and have not used for some time. However, let me state why I think you and I are not agreeing on this issue.

1. I am interpreting the denial of being "Anabaptist" by the London and American Baptists because Rome and the Reformers were using the Munster incident as evidence that the Anabaptists were anarchists against the governments that they were coloring all Anabaptists by the munster incident. The London Baptist were writing this confession purposely using the Westmnister to prove the very opposite of what was being charged on them by their enemies in order to associate them with that specific Anabaptist anarachism on the European Continent . In America the same charge was being made against Baptists in order to pervert what they really believed. However, as a matter of historical heritiage the early English and American Baptist historians did claim Anabaptist heritage.

2. Spilsbury and Daniel King argued for Baptist church perpetuity on the Basis of BIBLE ONLY. When challenged by their enemies to prove this historically, they had no history of their own. In order to avoid the lack of history to prove their continued existence (as they argued with the Bible) they responded with the John the Baptist Scenario simply as a THEORETICAL response in the lieu of no historical evidence. As soon as the Baptist provided a history they dropped the John the Baptist argument altogether.

3. Spilsbury argued that where there was no water baptized believers there was no true church of Christ and yes I can find his words and quote them and I will later.

4. The 1646 Confession was interpreted by Presbyterians to be a complete repudiation of the Reformed Universal invisible church theory that states all true believers presently existing on earth consist of such a church. Benjamin Coxe did not deny that is precisely what they did in fact teach but simply said they believed that baptism was not essential to salvation and there saved unbaptized persons in his response attached to the 1646 confession.

5. No confession of faith found in the Particular Baptists associational minutes until 1660 confesses a present church consisting of all the true elect on earth. NONE! They believed in a yet future glory church yet unassembled. They believed in the present Church in aggregate consisting of true churches of like faith and order. So neither the 1646 or any associational confession embraced a PRESENT EXISTING church of all elect in all denominations or in the world.

6. You have jerked the first article out of the 1689 section on the church and claimed that these Baptists did believe in such a thing when they did not, and when this section one is placed back in its context in the developmental response to the Westminster idea of such a present existing church it is completely repudiated in sections 2-15. The first article simply acknowledges their yet unassembled glory church consisting of all the elect. You may find individuals and quote them to prove such indivdiuals embraced that idea, but the Particular Baptists in England and in America at this point did not embrace that idea. You can find individuals who embraced any doctrine you want to defend. I am arguing concering the position of Particular Baptists as a whole. The associational baptists repudiated John Bunyans "open communion" church and refused to accept it as a properly constituted church.

7. American Baptist held to same present aggregate church (zion) and the future glory yet assembled church of all the elect of all ages. The Philadelphia Baptist Association and those associations derived from it argued for the same view of the church up to about 1800. The New Hampshire Baptist Confession would not even given voice to any other kind of church other than a local visible kind.

When I get time, I will find Spilsburys clear remark on no baptism no church. I have already documented the presbterian response to the 1646 Baptist view of the church and Cox's response. I have documented the developmental response to the Presbyterian present concept of THE CHURCH in sections 2-15 in the 1689 Confession. I will provide the early Particular Baptist associational confessions and definitions of the church and show they did not believe in any kind of PRESENT existing church made up of all the elect. Now, you may quote individuals to prove that such a concept may have been embraced by certain individuals, but that proves nothing concerning the Baptists as a whole, as you can find some individual that will support any doctrine you want to defend.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am on a break from course materials and want to respond to your post and finish this thread as time permits.

Because you said that you wanted to end the discussion, I have made another post on the History Forum. You may want to respond to that also, or maybe move this discussion there since it seems to be primarily about history.

I look forward to reading your source material on Spilsbury, but it will not alter the fact that in his book, A Trearise on the Lawfull Subjects of Baptisme, he states that baptism is not the 'form' of the church, that being the covenant. In saying this, I am not for a moment suggesting that the first PBs did not regard credobaptism as being of the very first importance (as do I). They would not have gone through abuse and persecution otherwise. What I am saying is that they did not 'unchurch' all paedobaptist churches as a result, but retained cordial relations with such as would accept them.

I will reply to you other points as time permits.