Who are the Baptists?

Our critics called us Ana-Baptists generically because we “rebaptized” by immersion, those who came to us from Catholicism, or Protestantism, or any other “ism” whose baptismal practices were alien to the Scriptures. Hence, the name “Ana-Baptists” (re-baptizers). As time passed the “Ana” was omitted and the result was a people called Baptists.

We would be the first to admit that not all those calling themselves Baptists today contend for the faith once delivered to the saints. It is not the name that people acquire that makes them right, but their continuity in the truth that Jesus Christ taught his first followers. This continuity is important because it is bona fide evidence that the New Testament church truth still prevails and will prevail until the He comes for His people. (Appendix3)

5. We are a people who have survived not because of our own militant efforts, but because of the promise Christ made to His churches that we would continue until he comes again.  “I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). Thus we must disagree with the Protestant/Reformed sects, who by their own admission state that the truth did die; the gates of hell did prevail, and they have re- established the faith to its original purity. 

We unaffiliated Baptists are not protestants. Our beginning predates the Protestant reformation by 1500 years, and the day of Pentecost by 3 ½ years. Christian religious organizations whose origins are dated on this side of the personal ministry of Jesus Christ are not an improvement on the church which He built upon the “Rock”. Denominations are the result of an urge to ”improve” on the original model.  Ephesians 2:20 “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;” Matthew 28:20 “ . . . lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

6. We are a people who feel no obligation or command from Christ to condone heresy or compromise any truth for the sake of unity or peace or numerical power. We choose to have no part in ecumenical or interdenominational alliances.  No amount of amassed weakness will produce strength, especially when it is contrary to the will of God (Appendix4).

7. We are a people who believe that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” Church membership is not the means of salvation but a means of faithfully serving the Lord. Church membership comes after personal salvation, which may occur at any time and at any place anyone repents and trusts in God the Son for salvation. We do not believe this salvation is found only in our midst.

(Appendix 1)
Jesus Christ is the founder of the organization He called “the church,” (meaning “a called out assembly.”) The forerunner of Christ’s coming was John the Baptist, who preached the gospel of Christ – Mark 1:1-4, Matthew 4:23; 11:5; 24:14; 26:13; Mark 8:35; 13:10; 16:15; etc.  From those believers who were baptized by John, Christ selected 12 to be Apostles.  For three years He trained them personally, and during this time of earthly ministry He organized His church. On the day of Pentecost this church was empowered and filled with the Holy Ghost. The Holy Spirit did not assemble them; they were already assembled, waiting for this event. This assembly was the same assembly to whom was given complete instructions by their pastor, Jesus Christ, as to what they were to do after he had ascended to His Father. Nothing new was added to these instructions on the day of Pentecost. Nobody can biblically claim a revised or “improved” model of the Lord’s final instructions to His church (Matthew 28:19, 20).

Biblical evidence that the Lord’s Church was established before Pentecost.

The Lords church before Pentecost was organized.
1. It had a head - Jesus Christ. Matthew 23:8.
2. It had a Pastor - Jesus Christ. John 10:11, 14. The word “pastor” is just Latin/Spanish for “shepherd.” See also 1Peter 2:25.
3. It had church discipline. Matthew 18:15-20.
4. It conducted business meetings. Acts 1:15-26.
5. It even had a treasurer! John 13:29.

It did the work of Christ.

1. It was commissioned. Matthew 28:18-20.
2. It was evangelistic  3:14; Matthew 10:14; Luke 10:1-17
3. It had the Keys to the Kingdom. Matthew 16:19.
4. It baptized those who believed. John 4:1-2.
5. It had a membership roll. Acts 1:13-15.

It was engaged in church activities.

1. It observed the Lord’s supper. Matthew 26:26-28.
2. It had singing. Matthew 26:20 and Hebrews 2:12.
3. It met for Prayer. Luke 11;1-9; Acts 1:14.
4. It was “added unto after Pentecost.” Acts 2:41. (You cannot “add to” something that is non-existent?
5. It was called a “flock.” Matthew 26:31; Luke 12:32. The church is identified as the “flock” of God (Acts 20:28,29; 1Pet. 5:2,3).

(Appendix 2)
The great commission recorded in the 28^th chapter of Matthew was given to the local churches and to no one else. We believe that a church’s responsibility to Christ cannot be delegated to any other institution or para-church organization operating independently of the authority of the Holy Spirit guided, local New Testament church.

 

The origin of the Universal church doctrine:

The Roman Catholic religion officially began in 325 AD, when Emperor Constantine presided over the council of Nicea. A “catholic” (Latin for “Universal”) church was established, which became wed with the State of Rome. The “universal” (instead of local) aspect facilitated an organized, structured hierarchy. Eventually, the office of “Pope” (meaning father) - [Matthew 23:9] was established to preside over this universal organization, and the system known as the ”Roman Catholic Church” evolved into it’s present day form.

The most foundational plank of Catholicism is the very doctrine it was named for - the doctrine of a universal church. The weight of her entire world system rests upon it. Without this universal doctrine, the Vatican would be just an isolated cloister in Italy. Let’s see how this doctrine affected Protestantism.

The advent of the Protestant reformation sought not to dismantle the Catholic system, but to reform it. When men such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli were expelled from the Roman church, they sought to revise the old system according to certain areas they deemed important from scriptures. Many things from the “mother church” remained completely intact - especially the universal church doctrine. Just as the catholic (universal) doctrine is paramount to the Roman church, so it also is with Protestantism.

One clear example is in the so-called “apostles creed,” which is a basic Protestant catechism. It states within it that ... “I believe in . . .the holy catholic church…”  The little “c” of course denotes the universal “church,” not the Roman system. While Rome claims itself to be the one true visible church, the Protestants claim the “true church” is invisible, and composed of all that know Christ as Saviour. The bible teaches that all who know Christ as Saviour are part of the kingdom of God and have eternal life through Him. The kingdom of God IS universal, and is comprised of all the redeemed both past, present and future. The church however, is the particular institution that Jesus Christ founded and commissioned during His earthly ministry.

If the New Testament church is local and individual, then why does the
bible sometimes use the singular term “church” instead of ”churches?” The term “church” (ekklesia) is used 115 times in the Bible. Ninety-nine of those times, it is speaking specifically of the individual, local, visible, assembly. One time it is applied to the Old Testament gathering of Israel in the wilderness, and the remaining fifteen times it is used in the generic institutional sense.

This generic use of the New Testament Church is used by Ecumenists to connote a present day invisible, universal “true church,” consisting of all the redeemed. This is often mislabeled “the body of Christ,” which scripture uses to describe the local, individual church. We believe this to be a presumption of Protestant doctrine and a confusion with the Kingdom of God.  There will be a future church which gathers before the Lord in heaven, but it is not identical with the local body of Christ that functions in the here and now.

The bible’s generic use of “church” in no way suggests the operating existence of a universal church today. In everyday language, we generalize in abstract terms for plural nouns. For example: “the sanctity of the home.” Using  “The Home” in a generic institutional sense in no way indicates there is one invisible, conglomerate, entity in which we all abide in a mystical fashion. Likewise, when the scripture says, “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church,” (Eph 5:25) should we so readily presume a mystical entity unbefitting of biblical description? Likewise, notice other examples in Scripture using generic abstract terms such as “the man” and  “the woman” in 1 Corinthians 11:3, or “the husband” and ”the wife” in Eph. 5:23. It is in this same exact manner that “the church” is mentioned fifteen times out of one hundred and fifteen in scripture.

So, why is this doctrine so popularly held? Besides being simply an inherited doctrine from Roman Catholicism, it was a teaching that was retained out of necessity. Without the doctrine of an invisible “true-church,” there would be only one dreadful alternative: that being the visible, local (contained within it’s own locale, and without a hierarchy) non-denominational, New Testament system of faith, as established by Jesus Christ. To submit to the faith of the hated Ana-Baptists would have been unthinkable.

Even the great reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, had a part in the imprisonment and execution of Baptists for the doctrines they held. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism also wrote of the Ana-Baptists with great scorn. So a universal, invisible ”true church” may have been a pragmatic necessity as well as a carry-over. Consequently, most Protestant theologians date this spiritual “true church” at Pentecost, unlike the New Testament Church which was both spiritual and existent before Pentecost.

A second facet of this doctrine is that of a dualistic “true-church” alongside the local assembly. There are many quasi-Baptists and inter-denominationalists that accept this doctrine without question. It might be surprising to learn that this system of thought actually existed 400 years before Christ. It is called Neo-Platonism. The term is a marriage of two words: neo - which means “similar to,” and Platonism - which is a system of belief developed by the Greek philosopher Plato who lived from (c. 428-348 B.C.).

Plato’s philosophy (called Platonism) was that the true world was mystical, and the material world consisted of imperfect reflections of mystical realities. Therefore, Platonic thought was dualistic; making the material forms of this world a second- rate unreality to the mystical reality. Sound confusing? Well, it should. But a form of this line of thought has been unquestionably accepted by many in “the kingdom of God” today. The first century AD saw a revival of Platonism in the Greco-Roman world. This became the basis for the Gnostic heresy of which the Apostle John so sharply dealt with in his epistles.

The Neo-platonic contrast between the material and immaterial, spiritual and physical, is very compatible with the notion of a universal ”true church”, alongside a physical assembly. The mystical universal church is seen as the pure one, composing of all the regenerate. Whereas the local, physical assembly is a mix of good and bad. This makes practical sense, especially if you believe all of Christendom is part of one big happy body.”  Scriptural error can be overlooked as if it were merely opinion in light of a mystical purity. Problems involved in the Protestant practice of unregenerate church membership are likewise more easily dealt with since the ”true church” is not a physical entity, but a mystical reality.

Likewise, this system of thought is prevalent among a great number of those who, in a quasi-Baptistic sense, admit to both a universal and physical church as a present, co-existent, reality. If within a church, personality problems or friction arise from the fact we are all too human, one can just skip on over to another church of choice. Logic would have it that, “Since we are all part of one big perfect church in the sky, faithfulness to a local church here is just so much fluff.” It should be noted however that the disciples whom Christ trained were not perfect either. Yet He began His church with them, and carries on His perfect work through imperfect people within the framework of a local church still today. The institution itself needs no improvement.

Similarly, God instituted marriage and human government. Neither of these are mystically universal, but physical and tangible. Both are fraught with imperfections - not because God’s institution is imperfect, but because mankind is a fallen creature. Neither can the institutions of God themselves bear any amount of “ improvement” at the hands of man. Thank God one day we will all be “improved” when we are all changed at the trumpet of the Lord. 1Cor 15:51-58;

(Appendix 3) Our record:
The heritage of  unaffiliated Baptists which reaches back to the days of Christ is found also in the historical record. There is a trail of blood, eighteen hundred years long, shed by myriads of martyrs who believed the very things the Unaffiliated Baptists hold as truth today. Their suffering of torturous deaths were recorded by their murderers to be used as evidence against them. There exists several works describing the martyrdom of Baptists. The following excerpts were taken from The House of God by Frank A. Godsoe, copyright 1973. They are taken from the works of non-Baptist historians, who recorded these things written by persecutors of Baptists.

CARDINAL HOSIUS, A Catholic dignitary, spoke these words in the Council of Trent, A.D. 1554: “If the truth of a religion were to be judged by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Ana-Baptists; since there have been none for these twelve hundred years that have been more grievously punished.” - Orchard’s History, p. 364

CARDINAL GIGGONS AND PATRICK J. HEALEY. In a work entitled “Crossing the Centuries,” published in 1912 by the ”Educational Association,” edited by William King, two Catholic dignitaries and with them former Presidents of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson: “Of the Baptists it may be said that they are no Reformers. These people compromising bodies of Christian believers known under various names in different countries, entirely distinct and independent of the Roman and Greek ‘churches,’ have had an unbroken continuity of existence from apostolic days down through the centuries. Throughout this long period they were bitterly persecuted for heresy, driven from country to country, disfranchised, deprived of their property, imprisoned, tortured and slain by the thousands, yet they swerved not from their New Testament faith, doctrine and adherence.”

MOSHEIM, a great Lutheran Historian, [and hater of the Ana-Baptists]
writes: “The First Century was a history of the Baptists. Before the rise of Luther and Calvin there lay concealed in almost all countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of the Dutch Baptists,” - Century Sixteen, part 2, chapter 30. “The true origin of that sect which acquired the name ’Ana-Baptist,’ is hid in the remote depths on antiquity, and is consequently difficult to be ascertained.”

Other Protestant reformers write:

JOHN O. RIDPATH, METHODIST HISTORIAN: “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist ‘church’ [Assembly] as far back as A.D. 100, though without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists.”- Jarrell’s “Church Perpetuity,” p. 69.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF RELIGIOUS KNOWLEDGE, History of Dutch Reformed ‘Church’, Vol. 1 page 148: Dr. Dermont, chaplain to the king of Holland, and Dr. Ypeij, professor of theology at Gronigen, in 1819, were commissioned by the King’s order to prepare a history of the Dutch Reformed Church, which was the State Church of Holland. The history was prepared under royal sanction and published officially. It witnesses the antiquity and orthodoxy, not of the Dutch Reformed Establishment, but of the Dutch Baptists. Here is what they reported to the king: “We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Ana-Baptists, . . . were the original Waldenses, and have long in history received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the Apostles, and as a Christian Society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through the ages. The perfectly correct external economy of the [Baptists] tends to confirm the truth, disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the Sixteenth Century was in the highest degree necessary; and at the same time it goes to refute the erroneous notion of the Catholics that their communion is the most ancient.”

(Appendix 4)
Fidelity to God’s word must be foundational in the mutual yoke and fellowship of brethren. True love for Christ results in faithfulness and obedience to His word. To shun purity for “unity” with erring brethren is rebellion, which is not of the spirit of Christ. The Pharisaical spirit of today’s Neo-Evangelical movement refuses the light of God’s revealed word for a way that is right in their own eyes. Thus Holiness is subject to popular “unity,” and Purity by a distorted shroud of “love.” Our stand of separation in this matter is based not on a delusion of self-righteousness, but on faithfulness to Christ.