Who were the First Baptists?

[Alan Gross]

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

Not everyone "gets it", even if it is demonstrably demonstrated from scripture

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.

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?

 

[Salty]

Ditto

 

[Alan Gross]

who is qualified to answer?

"Williams' contemporaries."

"A long-time friend and companion of Williams, David Scott."

"The Quakers."

"Williams' brother, Robert, and Robert's wife, Elizabeth, who were both members of Clarke's church in 1672. ([7 vols.; New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1963], V, 47, 108, 212, 213)."

"Originally, Robert and his wife were members of the group with Williams at Providence. (Morgan Edwards, Materials for a History of the Baptists in Rhode Island. Vol. VI; In Collections of the Rhode Island Historical Society. [Providence: Hammond, Angell & Co., Printers, 1867], 314)."

The author of: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/williams.asher.really.html

Louis F. Asher, B.A., B.D., M.A., Ph.D. candidate., was a professor of Church History at the Baptist Missionary Association Theological Seminary for some twenty-five years. Louis Asher died in November 1996.

If Roger says he was a Baptist -

I do not know of any claim Williams ever made of being a Baptist
and I do not believe any evidence for Williams ever being a Baptist exists.

If Roger says he was a Baptist - then who is to say he wasnt?

"Williams' own writings."

(The Complete Writings of Roger Williams [7 vols.; New York: Russell & Russell, Inc., 1963], V, 215ff.)

 

[Alan Gross]

Ditto

With such topics boring you, as the following:

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",

maybe it wasn't meant for you to "get it".

 

[Alan Gross]

In another thread I asked one simple question - which was NEVER answered.

Which one of these two questions you asked was the "one simple question"?

"why are there 57* varieties of Baptists?"

and "which group of Baptist are the true baptists?"

If that is the case then why are there 57* varieties of Baptists?

and many of those doctrines are in direct opposition - for example:

C-A
open vs closed communion
single pastor vs elder led
7th day vs 1st day worship vs "makes no difference"
young age vs old age creation
non-affiliated vs affiliated groups
ect
So which group of Baptist are the true baptists?

You did not ask for any scripture.

NOW, you are asking,

"EXACTLY WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES THE BIBLE GIVE A DEFINITE ANSWER FOR THE FOLLOWING DOCTRINES?"

I appreciate you bringing your dirty laundry from the Baptist History forum over here but, for the sake of honesty, why didn't you bring it over correctly?

BUT here is the exact question I am asking:

EXACTLY WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DOES THE BIBLE GIVE A DEFINITE ANSWER FOR THE FOLLOWING DOCTRINES?

I one simple question - which was NEVER answered.

I gave a pretty good "DEFINITE ANSWER FOR THE FOLLOWING DOCTRINES" on several of the subjects on all the doctrines you listed that you did actually ask,
to help you see why there are 57 varieties of Baptists and to identify which is the true church, etc.

So, I'm ahead of you on your new question.

(and many answers for non-Questions!)

...more fully than you asked.

And, if I didn't tell you before, you are welcome.

 

[Salty]

 

[Alan Gross]

I put the above in the wrong Forum.

Waited too long to notice and delete.
Will be a repeated post.

 

[DaveXR650]

If that is the case then why are there 57* varieties of Baptists?

Because no one has a claim to the name Baptist. I could start a church tomorrow and call it a Baptist church and no one could say anything. Also, this is what happens when you insist that you are a Biblicist and you get all your directions directly from scripture. The problem is so does everyone else. With those kind of egos and the way people are that's what you get. It's not all bad but that's the way it is.

 

[Van]

Baptists split from the Church of England, thus strong on separation of church and state. Baptists are "bottom up" rather than top down, thus congregationalists rather than Presbyterian. True Baptists are General Baptists, not Calvinists.

The first "believers only" baptism church started in 1611, whereas "the Particular Baptists stemmed from a non-Separatist church that was established in 1616 by Henry Jacob at Southwark, across the Thames from London."

'Returning to England (1611/12) to witness to his belief in adult Baptism and greater individual moral responsibility (against extreme Calvinist predestination), Thomas Helwys established the first General Baptist congregation in London."

 

[Salty]

....True Baptists are General Baptists, not Calvinists. ...."

So are regular Baptists (and there are many groups of them) "True Baptists"?

 

[Alan Gross]

So are regular Baptists (and there are many groups of them) "True Baptists"?

Salty: ~Yes.
...

Others: until 1810 and shortly thereafter, we're good. Then, the "many groups of them", as Salty said, began to split off and develop. Some called "Regular Baptists" or at that time the same as "Separate Baptists" adopted anti-missionary (Hardshell), "Washing of saints feet", etc., and/or ran off with Alexander Campbellites and still held the name "Regular" or "Separate".

There are 10 pages of solid search results, for "Regular Baptists", here:
Search BaptistHistoryHomepage.com

So, as you know, there are various "varieties" of folks who take the name "Baptist", much less "Regular".

TODAY, would a group called "Regular" be true to The Lordship of Jesus, regarding their organization? Not all of them, for sure. If they are anti-missionary, or Cambellites, of course, forget it.

As of circa 1810. Regular Baptists could be said to have a heritage and lineage reaching back to Wales and England, in The United Kingdom, and on back and back through possibly thousands, if not hundreds, of lines of predecessors, reaching to the first century, where they originated.

A "true" church would have distinctive beliefs, based on the New Testament pattern and the position that Christ Built His kind of church and "the gates of hell" (Catholsim, for one "gate"/ they tried, didn't they) "will not prevail against it."

from: Introduction to American Baptist Church Histories

in blue it says, "The Baptists churches of early America...generally referred to themselves as Regular Baptists.

Initially: "The Baptists churches of early America usually formed Associations and met at appointed times (generally on an annual basis) for preaching and to give reports of the work of their member churches. They usually printed records of these meetings and distributed them among their churches. Most associations used a Circular Letter, to communicate a message of doctrine or a practical spiritual matter to their churches. After the associations had for many years printed annual Circular Letters written by appointed writers on most of the theological and other subjects that were of interest to their churches, they began having pastors and clerks write histories of their churches. Most of them were published only in a limited number in their associational Minutes. Many of these discuss theological and social issues of their times. Also there are many entries about pastors and their labors, along with the mention of other prominent members. There is a wealth of information in these records concerning the beliefs and practices of those who generally referred to themselves as Regular Baptists.

from: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/ky.baptists.masters.chp.4.reg.sep.bapt.html

"Regular and Separate Baptists in Kentucky"
1742 - 1787 By Frank M. Masters

"From the very beginning of Baptist activities in the territory of Kentucky there appeared two classes of Baptists, the Regular and the Separates, and later a third - the United Baptists.1 These two groups of Baptists did not originate in Kentucky, but emigrated from the older colonies. These two kinds of Baptists were agreed on the fundamental principles, though they came to differ on some minor points. They both held that the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of Faith and Practice; the separation of Church and State; regeneration as a condition of church membership; the individual responsibility to God, and the freedom of worship; congregational form of church government; and the immersion of a believer as the only scriptural form of baptism. The churches that held to these essential principles were regarded as Baptist churches. Such churches rejected infant baptism as both non-scriptural, and contra-scriptural, and also agreed that baptism is symbolical of the great doctrine of redemption and in no wise a condition of salvation.2
1. Spencer, John H., A History of Kentucky Baptists, Vol. 1, p. 102-111.
2. Sweet, William Warren, Religion on the American Frontier, the Baptists, 1783-1830, p. 43, 44.

from: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/ky.baptists.masters.chp.5.1st.assocs.html

"Prior to the fall of 1785, each of the churches which had been planted in the territory of Kentucky was isolated from the rest by distance and by lack of any kind of organization through which they could work together in harmony. In view of this condition, the leading brethren began to discuss the propriety of an Association. Because of the division existing between the Regular and Separate Baptist churches, it was thought advisable to hold a preliminary meeting, preparatory to forming a permanent union.

"John Taylor thus speaks of the situation: "We soon began to contemplate an association; for that purpose, and partly to bring about a union with the South Kentucky Baptists, we held a conference South Elkhorn, in June 1785, but failing in the union with the South Kentucky Baptists, we agreed to meet as an Association at Clear Creek, 1st of October, 1785."1. Taylor, John, A History of Ten Baptist Churches, Second Edition, p. 55.

Our church was organized in 1786 by "separate baptists", who date around 1750. at: Our History – Bryan Station Baptist Church

"Our authority came, according to the Biblical doctrine of “church succession,” through particular New England “separate” Baptists who had sought out existing Baptist churches for this arm of authority. Such were Elders Shubeal Sterns and Daniel Marshall who, once they were saved, sought out Baptist Baptism; Shubeal Sterns at the Baptist Church at Toland, Connecticut on May 20, 1751;..."

Regular Baptists and Separate Baptists joined back together around 1810.

from: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/ky.baptists.masters.chp11.problems.progress.html

"The many churches constituted as a result of the great revival made it necessary to increase the number of associations. At the close of 1800, there were six such bodies, but at the close of 1810 the number had increased to fifteen. Also as a result of the same revival the Separate and Regular Baptists were united in one body (meaning an association they agreed to for inner-church fellowship, not usurping individual church authority and not "one body" as used in the Bible where it means one local church body that assembles), as has already been described. When the long-standing division of sixteen years was healed, and the associations entered into full correspondence, it appeared that "the golden age" of Kentucky Baptists had come..."

 

[Van]

So are regular Baptists (and there are many groups of them) "True Baptists"?

"The first "believers only" baptism church started in 1611, whereas "the Particular Baptists stemmed from a non-Separatist church that was established in 1616 by Henry Jacob at Southwark, across the Thames from London."

Thus I addressed the "first" baptist church" not the best baptist church. I did say "True Baptists are General Baptists, not Calvinists" The reason, IMO, is that the Calvinist leaning baptists do not adhere to all the baptist distinctives.

"To demand, whether directly or indirectly, that believers submit to any kind of authoritarian rule is both unscriptural and, in fact, questionable. This generation has seen its Jim Jones's and David Karesh's. Whenever believers give up their individual soul liberty in favor of following the demands of another person or affiliation, they do indeed compromise this essential doctrine of the faith." Thus the demand that all "true" believers adhere to the doctrines of the TULIP is antithetic to "Individual 'soul Liberty."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

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

Of course, but most don’t come close to resembling the apostolic churches from the first century…. So I consider that claim null & void.

 

[37818]

Of course, but most don’t come close to resembling the apostolic churches from the first century…. So I consider that claim null & void.

So no sect of Baptist exists that actually follow the New Testament to this day.

 

[Alan Gross]

So no sect of Baptist exists that actually follow the New Testament to this day.

IF and when they did and they do now, they would be identified by certain "marks" or distinctive characteristics, etc.

These following 8 "marks" could be used by a process of elimination, with the pure definition, here, along with disqualifications amounting to what these definitions don't mean.

Then, if there are some left, you may have something real that matches with the Lord's promises of His churches being perpetuated, as He said He would.

(First, the definition of a 'church' would be as in the New Testament times, meaning an assembly that congregates locally, only, etc.)

(1) The church's Head and Founder is Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:18; Colossians 1:18).

(2) Its only rule of faith and practice is the Bible (II Timothy 3:15-17).

(3) Its members are to be only saved people (Acts 2:41).

(4) Its government is congregational (Acts 1:23-26 - equality).

(5) Its teaching on salvation is that it is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9).

(6) It has but two ordinances; Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are symbolic (Matthew 28:19-20; I Corinthians 11:24).

(7) Its commission is inclusive (Matthew 28:16-20).

(8) It is independent (Matthew 16:19; Matthew 22:21).

To help make the determination, from history, and those currently, lately, I have thought that for people to forget the idea of proving or disproving the 'Baptist' (name) angle, at all, to evaluating the various 'sects' as whether they hold to Old Testament 'Christianity', instead. In the past and today.

Although this does, of course, use the word, 'Baptist', from start to finish, it explains a lot about the history of those 8 distinctives: BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY, from the Time of Christ, until He Comes Again.

When I mentioned the Lord's promises, they are in this thread, along with the others from the Bible:
Thoughtful, Prayerful, Acquiescence to The Eternal Word of God.

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

"We", our church family and hundreds of other sister churches make these claims (while 10's of thousands would fall short of them right quick, anyway) and not from the standpoint of high-and-mightiness, or better-than-thou-ness (terms I have never heard applied to us, since the rejection of doctrinal stances and the opposite/ = looking down on us/ always comes first), but from the standpoint of testifying for the Lord and being a bearer of Authority in Baptism, for those inclined (by The Lord and Bible witness, as we see it) to follow Jesus in being Scripturally Immersed/ Baptized, etc.

Then, if there is an assumption made from history and the inspired Bible record that a 'true' church still exists, if it is not ours, or one just like it, where is it? That can be a matter of prayer, to search and find (be shown) it.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So no sect of Baptist exists that actually follow the New Testament to this day.

Maybe Primitive Baptists. They do wash feet.

 

[37818]

Maybe Primitive Baptists. They do wash feet.

What about house to house teaching the gospel? Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 20:20.

 

[atpollard]

Was Roger Williams the first Bap pastor? John Symth or Thomas Hewley?

How about the Dutch Baptists, or were the Welsh Baptists - wait - how about the Germans?

Here is the Link:

I go with John the Baptist …

• Independent Local Church (not affiliated with the Temple)
• Separation of Church and State (opposed Rome and Priests “in bed”)
• Adult, believers baptism by immersion.
• Preached Biblical Authority over Rabbinical Traditions
• Called on Believers for direct access to God (follow Jesus rather than the Temple)

So that makes him the first Baptist (according to our Baptist Distinctives).

 

[Van]

Who were the First Baptists?

Baptists split from the Church of England, thus strong on separation of church and state. Baptists are "bottom up" rather than top down, thus congregationalists rather than Presbyterian. True Baptists are General Baptists, not Calvinists.

The first "believers only" baptism church started in 1611, whereas "the Particular Baptists stemmed from a non-Separatist church that was established in 1616 by Henry Jacob at Southwark, across the Thames from London."

'Returning to England (1611/12) to witness to his belief in adult Baptism and greater individual moral responsibility (against extreme Calvinist predestination), Thomas Helwys established the first General Baptist congregation in London."

I addressed the "first" baptist church" not the best baptist church. I did say "True Baptists are General Baptists, not Calvinists" The reason, IMO, is that the Calvinist leaning baptists do not adhere to all the baptist distinctives.

"To demand, whether directly or indirectly, that believers submit to any kind of authoritarian rule is both unscriptural and, in fact, questionable. This generation has seen its Jim Jones's and David Karesh's. Whenever believers give up their individual soul liberty in favor of following the demands of another person or affiliation, they do indeed compromise this essential doctrine of the faith." Thus the demand that all "true" believers adhere to the doctrines of the TULIP is antithetic to "Individual 'soul Liberty."

 

[Alan Gross]

I go with John the Baptist …

• Independent Local Church (not affiliated with the Temple)
• Separation of Church and State (opposed Rome and Priests “in bed”)
• Adult, believers baptism by immersion.
• Preached Biblical Authority over Rabbinical Traditions
• Called on Believers for direct access to God (follow Jesus rather than the Temple)

So that makes him the first Baptist (according to our Baptist Distinctives).

I like it.

The idea that John the Baptist's name was, "the Baptist" has a lot to say.

His name was, "John". And he was designated, "the Baptist".

Then, throughout New Testament history, essentially from day one, "Re-baptizers", as all True Baptists are, began to be called "Ana-Baptists", or similar, whether out of contention or strife, as soon as its importance became clear, as in the instance of the "Re-baptizing", in Acts 19.

So, the "name" Baptist has been around since Jesus' earthly ministry, none can deny.

Then, for every second-guessing about John the Baptist not being "a Baptist", in the same sense as others become "Baptists" (and I agree concerning this); which is by being baptized by Scriptural Authority UNTO a properly structured Baptist church assembly, Biblically speaking, there is, then by default, the Historical Fact (or genuine historical prospect) that "Jesus was the First Baptist", since He WAS baptized Scripturally by the Authority of God, by the man sent from God to baptize into, or UNTO, the very one and the same local Ekklesia ('Church') that Jesus Divinely Originated and Founded, i.e., "upon this rock I build My church" = upon this Rock which was Christ, the Cheif cornerstone, the Rock of Ages, Jesus Built and Edified and continued to edify His Brand of Called-Out Assembly, which was the local church assembly at Jerusalem made up of the Scripturally baptized Apostles "And God hath set some in the church" (besides Jesus Himself), "first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, ..." I Corinthians 12:28a... THE BAPTISM OF JESUS, By Ron Crisp

(7) Its commission is inclusive (Matthew 28:16-20).

As we can see from the list I had posted #(7) The Great Commission is ALL IMPORTANT to the continual self-perpetuating Organism-Organization that The Holy Spirit uses, as God's Witness "throughout all ages, world without end", etc.

You were talking to Earth, Wind, and Fire, 37818, but yes that is what you have pointed out, here:

What about house to house teaching the gospel? Matthew 28:19-20 and Acts 20:20.

("Primitive" are not known for their positions on "preaching the Gospel", i.e.:

Primitive Baptist Churches Teach Salvation for the Elect Only.
Jesus Christ died only for his elect, people chosen by God before the foundation of the world, Primitives say. All of his elect will be saved; the rest will not. They further claim that salvation is through God's grace alone, and that such human acts as repentance, baptism, hearing the gospel, or accepting Christ as one's personal Savior are "works" and have no part in salvation.)

So, I definitely go with "Baptists" and/or "Baptist-believing-like" Christians, based on those 8 Baptist Distinctives, beginning with Jesus Christ and His Forerunner Prophecied by God throughout the Old Testament.

I can also certainly concede that less distinctives identify "Baptist-believer-like" Christians, like below, and as many do for historical reference, to be only;

1.) Beleivers Saved by Grace Only through Jesus as their Savior having been "begotten by the Word of Truth" and the Holy Spirit,

and, 2.) the baptism of believers only.

Why are those two so important?

Look at what they were standing against, in atpollard's list!!, establishing an entirely new economy of the worship of God, through the Lord's kind of churches and The Kingdom of God, contrary to the Jews, etc., and later Catholicism, etc.

And think A.) how many so-called 'Christian religious societies' those two distinctions definitely eliminate and B.) think of 50,000,000+/- martyrs estimated to have held firm unto the death to these two positions and despite every means of torture to themselves and their families and brothers and sisters in Christ and their loss of everything, sometimes more than once.

The gates of Hell and The Great Whore and her Harlot Daughters aligned with the powers of civil GOVERNMENT did not and will not prevail against them.

• Independent Local Church (not affiliated with the Temple)

• Separation of Church and State (opposed Rome and Priests “in bed”)

• Adult, believers baptism by immersion.

• Preached Biblical Authority over Rabbinical Traditions

• Called on Believers for direct access to God (follow Jesus rather than the Temple)