Truth Magazine

By J.F. Dancer, Jr.

The issue of Guardian of Truth is devoted to a study of the Baptist Church. It is the aim of this article to see when this church came into existence. This is to be done by a study of history. Inspired history (the New Testament) does not mention such a church by name, so we will have to inspect “uninspired” history. In doing this, I am aware that there may be other uninspired histories that will present different dates and views. However, the ones to which I will refer are standard reference books recognized by most religious authorities.

In years past, some folks affirmed that a church was begun by John the Baptist during his personal ministry. However, we find that most have given up that idea. The New Testament does speak of a church but not until after John died. Frank S. Mead said, “It is often heard among them (Baptists, jfd) that they have no founder but Christ and that Baptists have been preaching and practicing from the days of John the Baptist. That is true in a limited sense; there were certainly men and women holding what have come to be considered distinctly Baptist principles all across the years. But as a church, or as organized churches, they began in Holland and England.”(1) Most people recognize that “The day of Pentecost is the birthday of the Christian Church. Before they had been individual followers of Jesus; now they became his mystical body, animated by his spirit.”(2) Further, “The almost universal opinion among theologians and exegetes is this: that Pentecost marks the founding of the Christian Church as an institution.”(3) And yet another reference book says, “When we turn to Acts, the situation changes. The saving work has been fulfilled, and the New Testament form of the church can thus have its birthday at Pentecost. The term is now used regularly to describe local groups of believers.”(4)

From these quotations from standard reference books we can see that most scholars agree that the church in the New Testament began with the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2. In this instance, the uninspired writers agree with the inspired ones. After John was beheaded (Matt. 14:1-12) Jesus promised to build His church (Matt. 16:13-19). Before Pentecost inspired writers speak of the church as yet to come. After Pentecost they speak of it as being a reality. Historically, there was no church begun during the days of John the Baptist. His work was to introduce the Christ. And although Pentecost marks the “birthday” of a church, we cannot refer to it as the Baptist Church since neither inspired nor uninspired writers use that designation to describe it. Let us pass through history until we find a church called by the name “Baptist Church.”

A.H. Newman was selected as the most outstanding Baptist Church historian of his time. He wrote a history of the Baptist Churches which is one of the highest individual Baptist authorities in the world. He said, “Not until we reach the twelfth century do we encounter types of Christian life that we can with any confidence recognize as Baptist.”(5) He further said, “The use of the term `Baptist’ as a denominational designation is of comparative recent origin, first appearing about the year 1644.”(6) In the Religious Encyclopedia edited by Philip Schaff (1891) we read the following: “The Baptist appeared first in Switzerland, about AD 1523, where they were persecuted by Zwingli and the Romanists.”(7) These dates differ somewhat but search as I did, I was unable to find any recognized history that gave an earlier date for the appearance of any religious group designated as “Baptists.”

The World Book Encyclopedia, in an article on “Baptists” written by Willis H. Porter (Associate General Secretary to the American Baptist Convention at the time) reports, “Baptists believe that since the time of Christ there have been Christians who upheld many of the principles that Baptists stand for today. They believe that Baptist ideas appeared during the Middle Ages in men like Peter of Bruys, who objected to infant baptism, and Arnold of Brescia, who championed spiritual liberty. People who taught that religion should be voluntary and that baptism should be limited to believers appeared in large numbers in the early 1500’s in Germany and Switzerland. They were called Anabaptists (rebaptizers) because they rebaptized believers who had been baptized in infancy. They were persecuted and many fled to the Low Countries and later to England. John Smith (or Smyth), an English Separatist preacher, founded a Baptist Church in Amsterdam in 1609. Many consider him the founder of the Baptist Church in modern times. Other churches were established in London beginning in 1611. In 1641 some Baptists became convinced that immersion was the form of baptism used by the Apostles. Soon all Baptists adopted it.”(8)

This is substantiated in the works of William H. Whitsitt. Whitsrtt was another great Baptist historian and, at the time he wrote, he was president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. First in an article in Johnson’s Universal Cyclopedia in 1893 and later in a book entitled A Question In Baptist History, he presented the view that “Roger Williams was probably baptized by sprinkling rather than by immersion and that immersion of believers among English Baptists was `invented’ by Edward Barber in 1641.”(9) This caused a great stir among Baptists but they did not successfully refute his statement.

Another Baptist historian, Henry C. Vedder, states: “The history of Baptist churches cannot be carried, by the scientific method, farther back than the year 1611, when the first Anabaptist church consisting wholly of Englishmen was founded in Amsterdam by John Smyth, the Se-Baptist.”(10) He further said “A history of Baptist churches going farther back than the early years of the seventeenth century would, therefore, in the present state of knowledge, be in the highest degree unscientific. The very attempt to write such a history now would be a confession of crass ignorance, either of the facts as known, or of the methods of historical research and the principles of historical criticism, or of both.”(11) On the use of the name Baptist, Mr. Vedder says, “The word Baptists, as the descriptive name of a body of Christians, was first used in English literature, so far as is known in the year 1644. The name was not chosen by themselves, but was applied to them by their opponents.”(12) Now note this carefully, “For the fact that the name Baptist comes into use at the time and in this way, but one satisfactory explanation has been proposed: it was at this time that English churches first held, practiced, and avowed those principles ever since associated with that name. There had been no such churches before, and hence there was no need of the name.”(13)

David Benedict, in his History of the Baptists wrote, “The first regularly organized Baptist church of which we possess any account, is dated from 1607, and was formed in London by a Mr. Smyth, who had been a clergyman in the church of England.”(14) In the English Baptist Reformation by George A. Lofton we read: “John Smyth founded a church upon the Baptist model, believers baptism and a regenerate church membership; and, organically speaking, this was the `beginning’ of the present denomination of Baptists, though begun with an unscriptural form of baptism. The principle, however, was right and the form was corrected in 1640-41.”(15)

There you have it. From the pen of some historians of the Baptist Church. Before the seventeenth century there was no such church! Efforts to prove otherwise cannot be successful from either the scientific or historical viewpoint. Even though dates by historians differ slightly we can see they agree that the Baptist Church did not begin with the work of John the Baptist. It did not begin with the personal ministry of Jesus. And even though a church was started on Pentecost (after Jesus went back to heaven) it was not the Baptist Church. The Baptist Church came upon the scene of history sometime in the early 1600s.

Endnotes

1. Frank S. Mead, Handbook of Denominations In The United States, Abingdon Press, Nashville, Tenn., 1965, p. 33.

2. F.N. Peloubet, Peloubet’s Bible Dictionary, John C. Winston Company, Philadelphia, Pa., 1947, p. 119.

3. Henry C. Dosker, International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1976, Vol. IV, p. 2318.

4. G.W. Bromiley, Pictorial Bible Dictionary, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963, p. 170.

5. Quoted by A.B. Barret, The Shattered Chain, Henderson, Tenn., 1942-43, p. 39.

6. A.H. Newman, New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1977 reprint, Vol. I, p. 456.

7. H. Osgood, A Religious Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls, New York, N.Y., 1891, Vol. I, p. 211.

8. Willis H. Porter, World Book Encyclopedia, Field Enterprises, Chicago, Ill., 1968, Vol. 2, p. 72.

9. William A. Mueller, A History of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Broadman Press, Nashville, Tenn., 1959, p. 155.

10. Henry C. Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists, p. 4, quoted by Alan E. Highers in Spiritual Sword, Memphis, Tenn., 1980, Vol. 11, No. 2, p. 9.

11. Ibid., p. 5.

12. Ibid., Introduction, p. iii.

13. Ibid.

14. David Benedick, History of the Baptists, p. 304. Quoted by Eugene Britnell in Searching the Scriptures, Brooks, Ky. 1981, Vol. XXII, No. 7, p. 456.

15. George A. Lofton, English Baptist Reformation, p. 254. Quoted by Eugene Britnell, Ibid.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 4, pp. 97, 117
February 17, 1983

By Earl E. Robertson

“And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me” (Matt. 11:6). What Jesus said offended others. The multitude had followed Him after the miracles of the loaves and fishes, but many “went back and walked no more with him” when He taught them that He was the spiritual bread of life (John 6:66). The Jews accused Him of being demon-possessed when He taught, “If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.” They thought He was speaking of physical death (John 8:51, 52). They had not forgotten by the crucifixion His comment near the beginning of His ministry concerning “building the temple in three days” (John 2:20; Matt. 26:61). He referred to His body; they had the Jerusalem temple in mind. These sayings offended some.

Men are often offended today by what they think Jesus taught. Denominational divisions keep many away from Christ, but He taught and prayed for unity (John 17:20, 21). The Calvinistic doctrine of personal, unconditional predestination and election to heaven or hell by God has turned many from Christ, but He taught “whosoever will” may be saved (Rev. 22:17). Don’t stumble over the traditions of men by assuming that they are the teachings of Christ.

Many people do read the Bible some. What they read in the Bible does not agree with much they are hearing in the pulpits and classrooms. These obvious contradictions are offensive to sincere people. The common man wants to have respect for and confidence in preachers but, at the same time, he feels the Bible is absolutely correct in its entirety. The man who respects the preacher feels that the preacher, having been “trained” properly, understands the Scriptures and that he himself misunderstands; yet, he has read what God has spoken in His word. He knows that the common man is able to hear and understand God’s word. The person is disillusioned and, consequently, disinclined toward the Lord. “Woe be that man by whom the offence cometh” (Matt. 18:7). Preachers must heed the admonition. `If any man .speak, let him speak as the oracles of God’ (1 Pet. 4:11).

To illustrate the point more we suggest that the Bible says, “Buried with him by baptism (Rom. 6:4), while preachers say “sprinkled.” The offenses come because of man’s false contentions, not because of Christ’s statement. Do not confuse the source of offenses! The sayings of the Lord do indeed offend some. But have you thought about the fact that He might be helped by the misrepresentations of men?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 86
February 3, 1983

By David Holder

Listening to the terminology that some people use when talking about the Lord’s church reveals that either these people do not understand what the church is or that they are not very careful about the language they use. The church is very important in the lives of God’s people and we need to understand what the Bible teaches about this matter. There are some things that need to be clarified regarding the church of Christ.

“Our” Church. Often people say “my church” or “our church.” I think I know what these people mean, but I also know what they said. We need to understand clearly that the church belongs to Christ, not to those who make it up. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, “I will build my church . . . .” Paul tells us that Jesus purchased the church with His own blood (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). In Romans 16:16 we read of “the churches of Christ.” We belong to the Lord’s church, but the church does not belong to us!

The Church Building. We need to learn that the church is not the building. “Church” is from the Greek word ekklesia which means the called out one, in this case those called out of sin to live in righteousness. The church then is made up of people -Christians. The church is a spiritual body. It is degrading to ourselves and demonstrates our lack of carefulness when we say the meeting house is the church.

“Going to church. ” Again, this is another misuse of the word church that is used frequently. On Sundays, Wednesdays, and other special times we come to worship or to Bible study, but we do not “come to church.” The church is not a worship service or a Bible study, the church is Christians who have obeyed Christ. We come to the building to be with the church but we do not “come to church.”

“I am church of Christ. ” This statement portrays that the New Testament church is a denominational body. When someone asks us what we are religiously, it is incorrect to say, “I am church of Christ.” The correct response would be that we are Christians or` members of the church of Christ. The church of Christ revealed in the New Testament is not a denominational body. The New Testament speaks of only one church. This is the church that Jesus established and that wears His name and respects His authority. There is no other. The Bible says nothing about denominations of churches. Hence, when we speak of our membership in the church we need to make it clear that we are Christians, members of the body of Christ, not that we are “church of Christ.”

Church headquarters. Some people ask where is our “church headquarters.” Nowhere in the Bible do we find the church organized with a central rule-making body. The church has only one head – Jesus Christ (Eph. 1:22, 23). Christians, wherever they might be, make up the body of Christ with Christ as the head over the body. Then according to the New Testament, the church is organized on the local level, i.e. Christians meeting together in a particular locality, thus “the church of Corinth” (1 Cor. 1:2). Each local congregation is to have its own elders (Acts 14:23) and deacons (Phil. 1:1). Each local congregation is independent of any other local church in work and worship, and independent of any governing body or centralized control. This is the New Testament pattern for church organization. We must let the church be what God designed it to be – nothing more or less.

It is sad that the word “church” has been misused. This misuse has caused many people to misunderstand what the church is. We need to be careful when talking about the church of our Lord. The church is a precious institution and our language should reflect that we understand how important the church is.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 84
February 3, 1983

By Carl McMurray

The phrase used above was used recently by an elder in the Lord’s church to describe some practices that are becoming all too common in various congregations. His statement during the course of our conversation surprised me for a moment because we were not speaking of centralization and the sponsoring church arrangement. neither were we discussing institutionalism, a socialized gospel, the limited authority of elders nor any other error commonly associated with the term “liberalism”.

The word “liberal” can be defined as an attitude of freedom from authority and, in dealing with the written word, it describes a way of handling Scripture wherein one is not restricted to the literal meaning (definition applied from Funk And Wagnalls).Judging from the arguments put forth by those who have embraced the aforementioned false teaching we can see that the term, used as an adjective describing one’s attitude toward the Scriptures, is an accurate one. While we note those who play fast and loose with God’s word, however, we should give care that the term does not become a label (to prejudice minds as surely as the term “anti”) that is associated only with the above issues. There are things being practiced on a regular basis by some so=called “conservative” or “faithful” churches that would also fall under the definition of liberalism. Calling for authority for centralization or institutionalism does not release one from the authority of other Scriptures.

When a congregation appoints men as overseers who are flatly unqualified upon the assumption, “that it’s better to have them than nobody,” are we not freeing ourselves from God’s authority? On the other hand, when a church exists in a given community for 20 to 30 years, grows to 100 to 200 members, expands or replaces their meeting place, supports several preachers in other places as well as a man full-time in their own locale, etc., and never appoints men as elders, are we not also ignoring God’s divine organization for the church? Are we to believe that in that length of time and with so many Christians there are not two mature, spiritually guided men who meet the qualifications? Or is it that too many Indians want to be chief (officially or unofficially) so no chief will ever be? What of the congregation that has appointed qualified men but some members will not submit to their decisions? Perhaps some even go so far as to criticize and accuse the men or their work, heedless of what God has to say about the matter (note Heb: 13:17; 1 Thess. 5:12-13; 1 Tim. 5:19). We have even witnessed preachers in one congregation using their bulletin to publicly criticized the decisions made by the elders of another congregation on a matter well within their Scriptural authority to decide upon. When such things go on and may even go uncensored because the guilty ones in the above situations have a “reputation” of faithfulness, what right have we to criticize another’s lack of application of Bible teaching? Are we not ignoring the plain, literal meaning of God’s word as we are engaged in such? This is not said to justify or compare sins, but simply to show that neither sin is any less or greater than the other.

Many congregations are in the habit of not disciplining unruly and disorderly members. Whatever excuses are put forth, it makes one wonder why these instructions were given if God did not intend for us to follow them. What is sad though is that while we reject God’s authority in this, our ignoring of sin, we have the gall to demand authority of others in their error. Beware of hypocrisy (Matt. 7:1-5). This is not to say that we should quit demanding authority. It is to say that we should also “examine ourselves.” From the teenager to the elderly, in some places it seems that if one will attend a majority of the worship services anything (and I do mean anything) will be tolerated. As the good brother said, “Now that’s liberalism.”

And what of the congregation that just does nothing. The preacher is well known, elders are appointed, 2-3 meetings are held per year. They have a name for being alive but the truth is that members don’t care about one another or associate with one another; salvation’s work in the community is almost non-existent. The group pats themselves on the back when their children are the only ones baptized and precious few of them are actually converted to the Lord. Are we not ignoring all the admonitions to diligence, and working, and a rest in the future (not now)? We point out the error of loving passages on faith and ignoring teaching on baptism. Should we not also point out the error of loving the passages on baptism and ignoring teaching on growth, maturity, perfection, and running our race completely? Should we not more seriously consider what it means to put His kingdom and His righteousness first?

Let us not allow the term “liberal” to become a label only applied to the so-called issues. Rejecting Bible authority and ignoring plain Bible teaching is a danger that any one of us can fall prey to. Let us allow our contributions to the Lord’s cause to the only realm in which it can be said that we are “liberal.”

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 3, p. 83
February 3, 1983