The Baptist Church

[Brother Ben]

Often when we are out and about people come up and ask us what we are. Sometimes they ask, "Are you Mennonite?" or "Are you Amish?", or something like that because of our plain dress, Darlene and the girls head coverings, and the big family. I have answered differently over the years and have more recently just told people, "We are Believers." You might ask, "Why don't you tell them you are a Baptist?" Well, because the name "Baptist" is a large catagory. I have studied church history extensively since I became a Christian, especially when I went away to Bible college. There was a time that I leaned toward what some call a Landmark Baptist. This is the belief that the Baptist Church as we know it can be traced somehow through an unbroken chain of churches all the way back to Jerusalem. It sounded good and had a certain "authoratative" voice to it. However, while in college an associate pastor at the church we were attending challenged me, this is the scenerio he gave me:

Imagine there was a remote village with no church and there were some dedicated, baptized, believers there. They met and challenged each other with the word of God and worshipped Him together as they served each other and the community. In time they fealt the need for leadership so they collectively chose a brother from among them to serve as pastor/elder. Would this be a true New Testament church?

I had to think long and hard about that. I finally came to the conclusion of, yes. It has all the marks of an authentic NT assembly.

Baptist is a mixed bag. It includes everything from Sovereign Grace Baptists (Calvinists,) to Freewill Baptists (Arminians,) and everything in between. What has made them Baptists? According to B.H. Carrol in his work, 'The Trail of Blood,' there are really two distinguishing marks of the true historic Baptist: salvation by grace through faith, and baptism by immersion. There it is! How we all like to micro define and claim as our own but Jesus put it quite aptly when he taught:

Mat 16:18 And 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.

Do you see the ownership there? It is His church not ours. We are simply building blocks. It is like the house I am building, how absurd it would be for one of the cinderblocks to say, "This is my house!" No, Mr. Blockhead, you are just a block, you are special, and you fill a need, but you are a part, a unit in a grand assembly. So are we.

So what is this assembly to be called?

Mar 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Rom 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

1Pe 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

Just a disclaimer here, in case someone wants to read something into my message I didn't mean, I do not claim any one of the above scriptures give the "official" name like some often do.

I can be called a Baptist, I am not ashamed of what they have stood for historically, but I can also be called a Believer, a Disciple, a Repenter, etc. I am a Pilgrim, a follower of the Lamb. I have no specific group, I am a part of the bride, the Lambs wife. She is bought by blood, and baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ that is without any distinct location except that he, "...hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:" (Eph 2:6)

Having said this, I see that in reality the name Baptist describes a larger group them many "Baptists" would really like to claim, especially when we get into this micro definition mode. I believe we should define what we believe. I believe we should teach it and make disciples, but we should also be humble enough to acknowledge that we are surely not "the" one and only right group, and that others are, you know, saved, but all messed up.

Spiritual elitism is the attitude that can arise and lead to persecution. One might say, "I'd never persecute others!" But, don't we do that when we set someone at nought because we differ on our explanation of whether someone is saved or lost, whether they lost their salvation, or never had in the first place, etc. We should have personal conviction when it comes to the scriptures, but we should also know that those who are washed in the blood are our brethren and we are to love them with sweet, embracing, kind, open, brotherly love.

Alas, it is a couple minutes to 8 and I have to get to work. I will add to this later as time permits.

The blessings of Christ be upon my beloved brethren.

Ben

[Tammy]

We get those questions alot, too. We answer that we are Baptists, because our doctrinal stance agrees with that of Baptists. Daniel and I have often wondered about the critical attitude toward Baptists on this site, while it is called "Pilgrim Baptists". The name of it sounds like who we are, yet the name Baptist is so often spoken here with a bitter tinge.

Thank you for this post! It answers some of our wonderings.

Daniel believes (and I agree with him, of course) that a scriptural NT church is made up of saved, scripturally baptized believers, but that it must also be established under the authority of another scriptural NT church, and not by just any Joe-Bloe off the street who gets bitter about his church, leaves, and wants to do his own thing. We have plenty of those "churches" around here. What are your thoughts about that?

[Brother Ben]

We get those questions alot, too. We answer that we are Baptists, because our doctrinal stance agrees with that of Baptists. Daniel and I have often wondered about the critical attitude toward Baptists on this site, while it is called "Pilgrim Baptists". The name of it sounds like who we are, yet the name Baptist is so often spoken here with a bitter tinge.

Again, which Baptist does your doctrine agree with? There are more groups than I can count. Many from differing theological views have been greatly used of God. Which one is right? Who made that decision?

My only criticism has been toward the great bulk of those who claim to be fundamental and conservative, and allow sin to be unchecked in the assembly and create an environment where those who are trying to raise a family for the Lord feel as if they were in the world instead of in the church (the holy bride of Christ.)

Daniel believes (and I agree with him, of course) that a scriptural NT church is made up of saved, scripturally baptized believers, but that it must also be established under the authority of another scriptural NT church, and not by just any Joe-Bloe off the street who gets bitter about his church, leaves, and wants to do his own thing. We have plenty of those "churches" around here. What are your thoughts about that?

This is your view, and it is popular, but not particularly the only valid one. I believe a church can send out a church planter to start a work and that is a good and scriptural way to do it, but not the only way the Lord of glory can start an assembly that honors Him. Jesus said he would build his church and your formula necessitates human intrumentality in order to supply a church for some remote group. I stated what I believe above. When the home church becomes corrupt, where do you go? Yes, one could spend the next ten years looking for a godly assembly, or could answer the call of God and start a work themselves. "Bitter Joe B off the street" should never do anything until he deals with his bitterness. No, the work of God should be done by a mature servent of the Lord.

I began, and will continue, with this post on the Baptist Church because I want to make it clear that I am not a dyed in the wool, business as usual, Baptist. I do not want an environment here that declared, "We are right and YOU are wrong." I have not always achieved that desired objective but continually strive to divest myself of my own righteousness and some kind of "group" superiority complex. I want Christ exhalted, holiness held up, and brotherly love encouraged. Forgive me where I have failed. I press on.

Ben

[George]

I want Christ exhalted, holiness held up, and brotherly love encouraged. Forgive me where I have failed. I press on

Amen brother Ben, Amen!

In Christ.
George

[allglorytogod]

I'd like to second that Amen


sister

[George]

Not too long ago a couple of brothers came into our Reformers Unanimous meeting to visit. During our personal counsel time one of them asked me what kind of Baptists we were. I wondered why he asked and he said that currently there are about 151 different sects of Baptists. I do not know the source of his figures but that staggered my mind. What a wonderful thing it would be if we could all get together on the same page.

However given the nature of the human (the flesh) it appears each wants to be better than the rest. It often amazes me that we can all read out of the same Bible and yet come up with all of these different stances. I firmly believe that the variances which exist are all at the interjection of the thoughts and "doctrines" of man and not those of the Lord.

My goodness, even in what are supposed to be fundamental Baptist circles there are so often Church splits because the Pastor has gone off on some thing part of the congregation does not agree with. So the Pastor goes off and starts his own flock so that he can run it as he chooses. Forgive me for saying so but I witnessed fundamental Baptist Churches in where the pastor has created himself a kingdom with him being the absolute authority when the Bible says that God gave Christ to be head over all things to the Church.

I believe this is what Brother Ben is saying. Christ is to be head over all the things to the Church and not the personal whims of the Pastor. If we do our best to follow the teachings of the Bible I don't believe we can go wrong. However, as has often happened with me, when someone can point out to me, using scripture that I am incorrect I will promptly change my attitude and understanding. You see if it is in the Bible it has validity to me. If it is the attitude of belief of any man and cannot be backed up by scripture it is a waste of my time which is really the Lord's time.

In Christ,
George

[Tammy]

This is your view, and it is popular, but not particularly the only valid one. I believe a church can send out a church planter to start a work and that is a good and scriptural way to do it, but not the only way the Lord of glory can start an assembly that honors Him. Jesus said he would build his church and your formula necessitates human intrumentality in order to supply a church for some remote group.

We believe it is the Biblical view, not just our view. We try to make our "views" to be in line with Scripture. Show me a NT church that was started without human instrumentality, and I will change my view on this. God uses human instruments, this is His way. The Holy Ghost and the church separated out Saul and Barnabas to go out to do the church-planting work.

Acts 13:2 "As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them."

God receives glory from the feeble praises of human voices, rather than have the rocks cry out! And He uses humble men to go out and plant His churches, as far as I can see in the Scriptures. If you want a Biblical church, then plant it the Biblical way. Your example of the group of believers in some remote place necessitates some one who went and told them about Jesus. They didn't get the gospel story from the stars or the trees, but from God's man, sent to do God's work.

I do not want an environment here that declared, "We are right and YOU are wrong."

But if you have the Word of God to stand on, you are right, Right?

I want Christ exhalted, holiness held up, and brotherly love encouraged

AMEN! and AMEN! That is why we are here! We hope to rightly divide the Word of Truth in the spirit of brotherly love, edifying the believers, and promoting true unity, which is based in Truth.

If we do our best to follow the teachings of the Bible I don't believe we can go wrong.

Thank you, Bro George! That is exactly what we are trying to do.

when someone can point out to me, using scripture that I am incorrect I will promptly change my attitude and understanding

Amen, Bro George! We will, too!

If it is the attitude of belief of any man and cannot be backed up by scripture it is a waste of my time which is really the Lord's time.

Yes, Bro. George! We say, "Show me Scripture!" We want to do right.
Humbly submitted,
Bro. Daniel and Sis. Tammy

[Brother Ben]

Let me clarify, when I said no human instrumentality, I meant no sending church, just an organic Christ made church, no planter but He.

Sister Tammy, I pose this question to you and Bro. Daniel:

Imagine there was a remote village with no church and there were some dedicated, baptized, believers there. They met and challenged each other with the word of God and worshipped Him together as they served each other and the community. In time they fealt the need for leadership so they collectively chose a brother from among them to serve as pastor/elder. Would this be a true New Testament church?

[George]

[quote]“Daniel believes (and I agree with him, of course) that a scriptural NT church is made up of saved, scripturally baptized believers, but that it must also be established under the authority of another scriptural NT church, and not by just any Joe-Bloe off the street who gets bitter about his church, leaves, and wants to do his own thing. We have plenty of those "churches" around here. What are your thoughts about that?”[/quote]

Col 4:15 Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.

Phm 1:2 And to our beloved Apphia, and Archippus our fellowsoldier, and to the church in thy house:

Rom 16:5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.

Above are three verses from the New Testament that refer to home or house Churches. I have done some research into these verses and their context and can find no evidence of any “church planter” being involved in their establishment.

When considering the profession of such people as Paul and Timotheus it must be understand that they were evangelists. An evangelist is one who goes into a certain area for a relatively short period of time (sometimes longer) and then moves on elsewhere. I am not aware of any circumstance wherein an evangelist served as a Church planter. True they may inspire others to start a Church but it is not their profession to start Churches.

Although Paul often stayed in places for months at a time he was constantly preaching the Gospel. I do not believe, based on my study of his life which includes reading three books about his life, that he had the time to be involved in planting Churches. There may be a problem of semantics here. Let us say for example that someone was inspired by the preaching of Paul to start a Church in their home (which it is quite clear from the Bible they were) and went to Paul to ask him how to go about it does that make Paul a Church planter?

Let us say that in today’s day and time a man moves to a community which does not have a Bible-believing, Bible-teaching Church so he starts having meetings in his home. Over a period of time the meetings get so large they can no longer continue in his home so the people start looking for a place to meet. Then after more time passes they decide to become a Church. Does that make this man a Church planter? I suppose that under the strictest sense of the word it does. However he was not sent by any organization including a sending Church. So according to the definition of a Church planter set up in this thread he is not.

“Show me a NT church that was started without human instrumentality, and I will change my view on this. God uses human instruments, this is His way. The Holy Ghost and the church separated out Saul and Barnabas to go out to do the church-planting work.”

We must take a close look at the work that Paul and Barnabas were separated out to do by the Holy Spirit. I can find no reference anywhere to the idea they were Church planters. Rather we need look at them as missionaries. That is the reason Paul’s journeys are referred to as Paul’s Missionary Journeys. Again, their duty to the Lord was to evangelize and cause others to want to start Churches.

And by what organization or sending Church were they empowered? Not one that I can find. They were sent by a person; the personage of the Holy Spirit. And yes, the Holy Spirit is a person. If one has done any study at all on Pneumatology it is plainly evident the Holy Spirit has all the attributes of a person as well as those of Deity.

I truly cannot find any evidence in the New Testament of any of the characters such as Paul, Barnabas, Timotheus, John Mark or even Luke starting a Church. Certainly they did inspire others to do so but what sending organization or home Church were they sent from? There existed none.

Certainly a Church must have the involvement of humans. The Church is the bride of Christ, the called-out body of believers. Without human involvement where would the Church come from? It takes people to comprise a Church even though it is not our Church but Christ’s.

I am sorry but I just cannot find any support in the New Testament for the concept that a Church must be started by someone sent from some organization of sending Church. It is commonplace today because of the fact the Church planters need financial support. We recently sent out a Church planter from our Church. The primary reason was he needed health insurance coverage for his family. As the sponsoring Church we took him under our umbrella so he could participate in our health insurance plan. However that was a matter of convenience and necessity for him. As I said before there have been many Churches started here in this country by folks that have no sending body.

I really don’t mean this to tear down your beliefs. I merely mean this to provoke you to thought and possibly further study of the Bible in this area. Just because we hear something from the pulpit it does not mean it is correct.

Yours in Christ,
George

[benshelpmeet]

Dear Bro Ben, and Bro George (Welcome back!),

Very good post here, on the Baptists church, what it is and what it is not.

I also am enjoying reading posts on the church that Jesus builds.

Mat 16:18 And 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.

Do you see the ownership there? It is His church not ours. We are simply building blocks. It is like the house I am building, how absurd it would be for one of the cinder blocks to say, "This is my house!" No, Mr. Blockhead, you are just a block, you are special, and you fill a need, but you are a part, a unit in a grand assembly. So are we.

So what is this assembly to be called?

Mar 11:17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

1Cr 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Rom 16:16 Salute one another with an holy kiss. The churches of Christ salute you.

1Pe 5:13 The [church that is] at Babylon, elected together with [you], saluteth you; and [so doth] Marcus my son.

Just a disclaimer here, in case someone wants to read something into my message I didn't mean, I do not claim any one of the above scriptures give the "official" name like some often do.

I can be called a Baptist, I am not ashamed of what they have stood for historically, but I can also be called a Believer, a Disciple, a Repenter, etc. I am a Pilgrim, a follower of the Lamb. I have no specific group, I am a part of the bride, the Lambs wife. She is bought by blood, and baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ that is without any distinct location except that he, "...hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:" (Eph 2:6)

Having said this, I see that in reality the name Baptist describes a larger group then many "Baptists" would really like to claim, especially when we get into this micro definition mode. I believe we should define what we believe. I believe we should teach it and make disciples, but we should also be humble enough to acknowledge that we are surely not "the" one and only right group, and that others are, you know, (saved, but all messed up. )

Thats sad!, we used to think we were right and others were wrong. We were Ind. Fund. Baptist and proud of it, we thought the Southern Baptist, and all other baptist were liberal and missing the mark, and all other groups were heretics and lost because they did not believe in the truths of the bible like we did. We felt we had arrived doctrinally. I feel ashamed that I ever felt that way. Now we are enjoying fellowship and we are learning from other brethren that come from other groups that are not Ind. Fund. Baptist...there not baptist at all. Now I feel abundantly blessed and free from judgmental, Spiritual elitism. We are not the only right ones out there. God had to break down our wrong beliefs and teach us the truth. ~ Darlene ~

Spiritual elitism is the attitude that can arise and lead to persecution. One might say, "I'd never persecute others!" But, don't we do that when we set someone at naught because we differ on our explanation of whether someone is saved or lost, whether they lost their salvation, or never had in the first place, etc. We should have personal conviction when it comes to the scriptures, but we should also know that those who are washed in the blood are our brethren and we are to love them with sweet, embracing, kind, open, brotherly love.

Amen! That's what I believe....There are other christian brethren out there not all baptist. We need to study history and see, we are not the only chirstians out there. God has used many men in many groups in the past. We will be surprised when we get to heaven and find born again brethren that were greatly used of God, and they were not Ind. Fund Baptist...they were not baptist at all.

On the thought of Spiritual elitism, the Lord has been doing a deeper work in my heart. I use to feel pretty good and right about my dress standards and the added head covering. I looked down on others who were not not there yet. It was deep in my heart...ugly. I could not understand how God could use other groups or even liberals for the growth of His kingdom. If they were not doing all I knew to be good and right, then they must be wrong. How or why would God use them if they were off somewhere, if they had beaty music, immodesty, TV/movies, fashion/vanity, or off the path in some other area. This always baffled me. The Lord has taught me and opened my eyes. I now appreciate all churches who stand and believe in the fundamentals of the faith. the virgin Birth, blood atonement, by grace through faith, etc. I am thankful for the liberals and other groups who do not see eye with me. I would rather their doors be open shedding some light, then the doors be closed and the people away from the promptings of the Lord and their hearts not being able to be pricked toward God. I'm now for these churches. We are all at different places in our walk, God is the one that draws the believer away from error and toward truth. God guides the believers path. Now I look for believers with their hearts toward God, and I can find fellowship and a common ground there. I cannot be at peace in their churches, but I am for them. And they are brethren. Gods church is alive and well. We need to find like minded believers and meet with them for worship and fellowship and be happy with where the Lord has us on the path. We do not believe that the church of the living God is a certain group any more, but of born again believers.

However given the nature of the human (the flesh) it appears each wants to be better than the rest. It often amazes me that we can all read out of the same Bible and yet come up with all of these different stances. I firmly believe that the variances which exist are all at the interjection of the thoughts and "doctrines" of man and not those of the Lord.

This is a good observation from Bro George.

~ sister Darlene ~

I enjoyed Bro Georges last post...very well said.

[allglorytogod]

I agree judgmental spiritual elitism is very wrong ... so is pride and arrogancy


Proverbs 8 : 13

The fear of the Lord is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the froward mouth, do I hate.

but we should also know that those who are washed in the blood are our brethren and we are to love them with sweet, embracing, kind, open, brotherly love.

To this, I say Amen

[Brother Ben]

The early church was faithful to preach the gospel and baptize those who placed saving faith in the finished work of Christ on Calvary. As the church pressed on into the early centuries persecution increased. It seems as if there was no end in site, but with the coming of Constantine came the Edict of Milan. Constantine liked the principles of Christianity (though he was not a Christian,) and did not agree with the severe persecution they endured. The edict basically outlawed any further persecution and demanded that peoples properties were to be given back to them.

Wanting to go one step further, he built great houses of worship and eventually paid the minsters their salary out of the government coffers. In time corruption set in and these churches became what we know today as the Roman Catholic Church.

Enter, St. Augustine, defender of the faith. He became their theologian and once he penned the "acceptable" doctrine, all who practiced otherwise were deemed, heretics. The church of apostolic origin, the true church, never stopped preaching the gospel and baptizing converts. As the false doctrine of Catholicism developed they came up with infant baptism. Because the true church was baptizing people after conversion anyone who came over to the truth from error were, in the eyes of the Romish church, re-baptized. This gained for these apostolic believers the again baptizers, or anabaptists.

This group, anabaptists, would include many historic churches including, but not limited to: Montanists, Donatists, Waldensians, Petrobrussians, Paulacians, Bogomils, The Cathary, etc., throughout the Dark Ages and the Reformation.

These groups, if you do some independant study, had variations on many secondary teachings, but they had in common, salvation by grace through faith, and baptism by immersion. This, as Dr. Carroll described it, was a Baptist.

So, I again assert, that there are many groups today, in keeping with the historic pattern, that would be catagorized as Baptist. So what should we do? We should be like those early believers and give no regard to what they call us, but that our testimony is one that would bring ALL GLORY TO CHRIST. Is it o.k. to be a Baptist? Surely it is, it was this group that taught me to know Christ. However, the Lord in His sovereignty has used those whom he saw fit throughout church history for the glory of HIS kingdom. We should not try building our kingdoms, it never works. In time, like the early Catholic church, error sets in, and groups deviat from the core message. And what is the grand theme? To return fallen man to a love relationship with the Creator God, our Father.

[7schmicks]

Bros. George and Ben have some good words about church. "Church" simply means "called out." It isn't intended to be a a big business or a social club, although the Bible gives clear instructions to be careful to maintain order and to keep discipline through chastising those Believers who decide to practice sin. That's why we may even go so far as to say that we, the church, shouldn't declare ourselves a "Church" for the tax-exempt status that the government hands out, because by doing so, we allow the government to have authority to regulate what our elders/pastors can or cannot say, or to run million-dollar businesses, all tax free. I don't think this is what the Lord Jesus had in mind at all. Church is about Christian fellowship, breaking of bread, and prayer. It may be the time to confess our fault one to another, even, and to encourage one another in the faith. It seems that most of our gospel preaching (except for the special work that an evangelist or special evangelistic meetings might do,) is intended to be left to each individual in our day by day contacts, where people can actually witness our Christian behavior, because when we turn our regular church gatherings into big Gospel Business, we end up making it some kind of "show" to see how many people we can lure in, which inevitably makes the church lose its holiness and power through compromise.
Sister Brenda

[allglorytogod]

Brenda

Some good points sister


Blessings
sister

[Tammy]

Hello everyone,
We're still around... But have been very busy the last couple of days. Thank all of you for your comments! When Daniel and I are able to sit down together to read, consider and pray, you will hear from us.
I will say that over the last year and a half, our ideas about missions and church planting has dramatically changed from what we learned in Bible college. This is a crucial time, as Daniel has lead some souls to Christ in a neighboring town, and God-willing there will soon be a young church meeting there.
Pray for us!
Sister Tammy