Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Matt Black]

No, they're not the only two, just the two out of your list with which I'd agree. My further 'marks' would be:

Apostolic authority and oversight (vested presently in the below)

3-fold ministry of bishop, presbyter and deacon

Evidence of Trinitarian belief esp in baptism (Trinitarian formula used for that)

Eucharistic liturgy of some kind

So, yes, I anticipate that our lists disagree!

 

[DHK]

Oh I agree, but Tom Butler referred to the 'doctrines and practices of the NT era congregations' and being normative for Baptists and I was highlighting an obvious problem with that approach (clearly the early Jerusalem church did have male circumcision as one of its 'practices')

Matt, "thou art beside thyself; much learning doth made thee mad." (Acts 26:24)
You assert that circumcision was a common practice of early believers, but have offered no evidence. Why should I believe you?

 

[Matt Black]

I did not assert that it was a 'common practice' just that it would have been the practice of the Jerusalem church prior to the Council of Jerusalem in around 49AD since before then they didn't know any better.

 

[DHK]

I did not assert that it was a 'common practice' just that it would have been the practice of the Jerusalem church prior to the Council of Jerusalem in around 49AD since before then they didn't know any better.

That is only an assumption on your part. The Council at Jerusalem was to silence these Judaizing heretics once and for all. Of course they knew better. If they didn't know better there would have been no need for a Council, an official decree. The decree was to silence that heretics and give peace to the Gentile believers. Previously these heretics had been following Paul in all his missionary journeys trying to spread their heresy, but Paul would have none of it. He knew better. A study of Galatians will tell you the story.

 

[Matt Black]

Not at all; this was a development of doctrine and practice. Look at it this way: at Pentecost, the Church was a purely Jewish entity - all its males would have been circumcised and its male converts would have been circumcised Jews who in turn would have circumcised their male children. These individuals were not heretics at that time; things only began to change with the conversion of the Samaritans and, more dramatically, Cornelius and other Gentiles. The issue then arose as to whether the resulting male converts from outside Judaism should be circumcised and observe other aspects of the Law, and it was this issue which the Council of Jerusalem settled; those who subsequently refused to obey it's decrees then became at best schismatic and at worst heretical and included the Galatian Judaisers.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Exactly. An author's poor use of a language makes it difficult to take his writing seriously.:thumbs:

I’m not writing a dissertation just posting messages on a board. I agree my spelling and use of the English language is horrible. Which is why my wife was my editor in Grad school.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have demonstrated Tom Butler's point well. You paint all anabaptists with the same brush. The word "Ana-baptist" simply means "re-baptizer" or "baptize again." It was a name given out of disdain and ridicule. They did not choose that name because they wanted it. They got that name because their converts came out of Catholic or Anglican Churches who had already been baptized as infants. Once saved, they had to be "re-baptized," since their first "baptism" wasn't considered a baptism at all. The label came from the Catholics and Anglicans.

The statement you just made is extreme and probably refers to less than 1% of all anabaptists. Do you believe that that is a fair representation of the Anabaptist movement to paint all of them as polygamists, even all the ones in Germany as polygamists. Like the RCC, you would like to tarnish Bible-believing Christians with an evil and wicked paint brush, using an exception (which you probably can't document in the first place), and then generalize that all these Christians are the same wicked evil unsaved people. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I'm pointing out characteristics which can be found in noted ana-baptist of the day. If "again baptisers" is the only relationship you can compare with this movement then there is a poor correlation. Also note that Jacob Amans and Menno Simons were also Ana-baptist. But your use of the Anglicans is not consistent with you're point since Anglicans were never known as Ana-baptist.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

For those who wish to attach some degree of aberration to those ancient groups claimed as ancestors by many Baptists, one should consider that these people were considered enemies of the established churches of the day, whether Catholic or otherwise. Some of those aberrations were probably lies perpetuated by their enemies to discredit them.

No one denies that there were variations. But most of those groups share a number of doctrines also held by modern Baptists. They also share a history, that is, they were persecuted by the established church.

Lutheran historian Mosheim wrote that these groups existed in Wales, and were hidden in the forests of Europe before Luther and Calvin came on the scene.

Now, I want to quote a letter written in 1519 from Bohemia to the famed Catholic theologian Erasmus.



Sounds like Baptists to me. And remember, this was written by someone who was not praising, he was condemning. Erasmus was sort of a reformer who chose to work within the RCC, but when two of the people described in the quoted paragraph complimented him, he lashed out at them, calling them "Anabaptists."

Note that the comparisons doesn't state what they do believe. Which is at point. So you're basically speculating.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is all kinds of such evidences in historym IF one truly wants to find it. My agrument remains that it seems impossible that the NT church should disappear completely unto magically Smthe appears on the scene to develop baptistic churches along with the reformers, when not one of the reformers developed a baptistic church and even Smythe got the baptism incorrected...pouring water on his own head, and then he never did form a baptist church........I am puzzled!

Cheers,

Jim

If I want to find evidence of space aliens in south america I could find it. Doesn't really prove a point. If you want anything bad enough you can reason it out.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Jim, I would think that one would be embarrassed to hold to such a notion that Jesus had no church on his earth from the First century to the Reformation. Particularly in the light of Matthew 16:18.

I can anticipate the reply, "wait a minute, we didn't say there wasn't one; we just said there's no documentation."

If anybody wrote this, I just missed it, but I have yet to read anything on this board by any anti-Landmarker that supports unbroken succession of New Testament churches from apostolic times until today. They have trashed without exception every Christian group cited by the Landmarkers as progenitors of modern Baptists. They have left the world with nothing but weirdo cults which apparently bear no resemblance to a first century New Testament church.

So we are left with the question, were there, or were there not, true NT churches in existence somewhere from Jesus' time until now?

This is a trick question, so consider the implications of your answer.

Choose from one of the following answers:

1. Yes, and we Baptists claim them as ours.
2. Yes, but they weren't Baptist because Baptists didn't begin until the Reformation.
3. No, because there's no evidence. There were times when there was no New Testament church in existence.
4. Don't know because the evidence is thin. But we accept by faith Matthew 16:18.

If none of these answers will do, give your own.

The most honest answer yet.

 

[DHK]

Not at all; this was a development of doctrine and practice. Look at it this way: at Pentecost, the Church was a purely Jewish entity - all its males would have been circumcised and its male converts would have been circumcised Jews who in turn would have circumcised their male children. These individuals were not heretics at that time; things only began to change with the conversion of the Samaritans and, more dramatically, Cornelius and other Gentiles. The issue then arose as to whether the resulting male converts from outside Judaism should be circumcised and observe other aspects of the Law, and it was this issue which the Council of Jerusalem settled; those who subsequently refused to obey it's decrees then became at best schismatic and at worst heretical and included the Galatian Judaisers.

Being circumcised does not make one a heretic. Being circumcised as a requirement for salvation does. And that was never the case except among a sect called the Judaizers which were heretics.

BTW, since I am circumcised, then according to you, am I a heretic?? :BangHead:

 

[Matt Black]

No, you're not a heretic - because you don't believe it, along with other aspects of Judaism, to be necessary for salvation. But the point is that the early Jerusalem Christians did believe that it was necessary to be a Jew in order also to be a Christian - they could not believe prior to Cornelius' conversion (and some even after that - hence the necessity for the Council of Jerusalem) that salvation could exist outside of the Jewish race, outside of the Old Covenant.

 

[DHK]

No, you're not a heretic - because you don't believe it, along with other aspects of Judaism, to be necessary for salvation. But the point is that the early Jerusalem Christians did believe that it was necessary to be a Jew in order also to be a Christian - they could not believe prior to Cornelius' conversion (and some even after that - hence the necessity for the Council of Jerusalem) that salvation could exist outside of the Jewish race, outside of the Old Covenant.

This is your opinion only with no documented proof. Please provide Scripture for your stated opinion.

 

[Matt Black]

Oh, where to start? The fact that the first Christians were Jewish converts (Acts 2); the fact that Peter had to be convinced by God that the Gentiles were not unclean (Acts 10:11-16; 28); the astonishment and in some cases initial opposition to this from the rest of the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 11:1-3; 18); and the continuing disagreements settled by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

 

[DHK]

Oh, where to start? The fact that the first Christians were Jewish converts (Acts 2);

"The first Jewish converts?"
I was circumcised; they were circumcised. It has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a personal preference. Christians before this generation have been carrying on this practice for ages. It has nothing to do with religion. My parents aren't even saved and thought it a wise thing to do. It has nothing to do with Christianity.
Having a Jewish background would lead them to believe it would be the right thing to do; not that it would be connected to salvation. Would circumcision harm them? No. Was it connected to salvation? No. Only in the minds of a heretical sect that was condemned by Paul was it connected to salvation. Concerning them Paul said: "Let them be accursed."

the fact that Peter had to be convinced by God that the Gentiles were not unclean (Acts 10:11-16; 28);

This is not directly related to circumcision; only indirectly. The Jewish mentality was that they were God's chosen people, and all others were unclean. Thus the Jews felt unclean to enter the house of any Gentile. Consequently God gave Peter a vision to inform him not to call any person unclean. The question was not circumcision, but not to treat the Gentiles as "unclean."

the astonishment and in some cases initial opposition to this from the rest of the Jerusalem congregation (Acts 11:1-3; 18); and the continuing disagreements settled by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

Have you never read the context of Acts 15?

Acts 15:1 And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
--These men were unsaved. They believed in a salvation of works. They troubled Paul wherever he went. Paul writes of them extensively in the Book of Galatians.

Acts 15:3 And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
--Paul and Barnabas had just been on a long missionary journey where many souls were saved, baptized, and many churches established. Most of them were Gentiles. None of them were circumcised. That was not the practice of Paul. And he gave testimony to that fact.

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
--The Pharisees had to get their two cents worth. But they were Pharisees not Christians. Note that Paul did not call himself a Pharisee any longer. Only an unsaved Pharisee would put such a yoke on newly saved Christians so that they might try and stamp the movement out. Christianity was not Judaism, and these heretics couldn't make it so.

James was the pastor of the church. Here is what James said:
Acts 15:13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
Acts 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.

The heretical Judaizers had once and for all lost their case. It was never a case to begin with. They had been causing trouble. Now that trouble could be published abroad and the public could know that it was a heresy denounced by all the disciples, with one accord.

Note, that with Paul it was never an issue. He never attached salvation with circumcision, and neither did any other apostle. You won't find it in Scripture among believers.

 

[Matt Black]

You're ignoring the elephant in the drawing room: the first Christians were Jews, with all the soteriological baggage that went with that.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You're ignoring the elephant in the drawing room: the first Christians were Jews, with all the soteriological baggage that went with that.

That's a pretty big elephant.

 

[DHK]

You're ignoring the elephant in the drawing room: the first Christians were Jews, with all the soteriological baggage that went with that.

Matt,
The first Christians were Jews. They couldn't go back and undo what their parents did to them. Of course they were circumcised; but their circumcision had nothing to do with their salvation as Paul taught, and fought against tooth and nail. You havent' a Scripture to stand on, nor have you provided any as I requested.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We see here were Jews commonly held that it was being decended from Abraham provided salvation by John the Baptist rebuke

7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham.

So it's safe to see that Jews believed in lineage heretige

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,
The first Christians were Jews. They couldn't go back and undo what their parents did to them. Of course they were circumcised; but their circumcision had nothing to do with their salvation as Paul taught, and fought against tooth and nail. You havent' a Scripture to stand on, nor have you provided any as I requested.

On the contrary I have cited Scripture. I can only conclude that you're choosing to miss the point