Well, good afternoon. It's good to see everyone back. Everyone who came back, if you're not here, I trust that you're somewhere else where the Lord is equally pleased with where you are at. Before we begin, let me just say this. We are, in the coming weeks, going to be looking at Leonard Verdun's book, Reformers and Their Stepchildren. But I thought it would be really helpful for us to begin with a general study of church history that will set the stage for any discussion that we might have about Verdun's work, especially as it relates to the identity of Baptists and why it's important that we understand the distinction between Baptists, Protestants, other denominations, so on and so forth. But before we do that, I wanted to begin with a quote by Bill Downing that I found very, very intriguing, if not controversial, but I think it's a good quote. Downing explains history like this. He says, divine predestination is the key, and this is gonna cut out periodically, I don't know why, but it's the key to a proper understanding of history. History is not cyclical, does not repeat itself, as some ancient and modern philosophers and historians have suggested, nor is the flow of time from the past to the present and on to the future as an evolutionary and humanistic philosophy of history presumes. Biblically, the flow of time is from the future to the present, and from the present to the past. History is nothing more or less than the progressive realization and unfolding in time of the eternal purpose of the self-disclosing triune God of Scripture." Again, think of that what you will. You may disagree with that. You may yourself have this evolutionary understanding of how history proceeds. But I think this is important for us to understand that when God exists outside the space and time continuum, nothing ever occurs to God on a basis like it does for us. We live in linear time. I've told you that before. We live where we put one foot in front of the other to get from point A to point B. We live in A time where we go from our first birthday to our hundredth birthday. We live in linear time. God does not live in linear time. And to the extent that we can understand things from God's perspective, I think we'll be far better off. And this applies to history as well. If we view history not as just a sequence of years ongoing from the past to the present through the future, but if we really view it as God's plan unfolding before our very eyes, we can actually start to see that we've got it reversed. As a matter of fact, I've talked about this before as well, the second law of thermodynamics really proves this, doesn't it? The second law of thermodynamics is that law of physics which establishes entropy as a truth. Things go from order to chaos. What's the evolutionists say though? They go from chaos to order. And I think it's that reversal of how God actually works in the realm of his creation that helps us to understand history more as the future coming toward us rather than the past being what it is in our minds. So again, it's just a philosophical thought. Think what you will of that. Why study church history at all? Well, First of these is to avoid repeating the errors of those in ages past. If we study history as a means of avoiding the errors that have been done historically, then we'll be very well served. Again, we know that age-old phrase that's attributed to many. He who fails to remember history is condemned to repeat it. Basically, that's the point there. Number two, to understand the faithfulness and providence of God. How many of you like to read the stories of the martyrs, the stories of the church fathers, the stories of those great men and women of old who set examples for us in terms of how we're to live our lives and how we're to comport ourselves as God's children. I think we've all benefited greatly from understanding and seeing in history the faithfulness and providence of God. In addition to that, we study history to distinguish between biblical truth and man-made tradition. Biblical truth and man-made tradition. We live in a day and age now where The historical record has been so revised so as to be unrecognizable by many who are students of history. In our public schools today, history is being revised at a rapid rate to remove certain aspects of our history that are unsavory, to promote other aspects of our history which really paint a different picture than history itself. We live in a politically correct world where it's okay to talk about certain things historically, but it's not okay to talk about other things historically. And so we need to understand history in order to distinguish between biblical truth and man-made tradition, even historical revisionism. I'm just gonna continue here and you can catch it as it appears on the screen. Another reason is to understand and appreciate the ultimate price paid by many for their fidelity to God. History is a great reminder that the life we live now in the 21st century is not really the life that was led by many who lived in much darker times. There are people who have actually given their lives for the kingdom and cause of Christ and studying history helps us to identify with those people and understand and appreciate the ultimate price that was paid for their fidelity to God. Okay? Another reason to gain encouragement from the past that will be useful in the present In this sense, history is cyclical. We go through things that are not unique. Whatever problem you're facing right now, whatever difficulty you're having, so on and so forth, is not unique in the annals of history. If you're enduring it, if you're going through it, people have done it before. And so when you study, especially church history, you'll find a great deal of information that will explain how you can deal with things in a very godly way. So, again. Now, why this particular study? Well, this study, if you're taking notes, this will flash up whenever it gets good and ready, but this study will assist you in understanding the importance of and establishing and maintaining a heritage of doctrinal purity. There is, contrary to popular belief, there is a rich history of doctrinal purity within the local church. It's verifiable and it's knowable. This will enable you to comprehend and appreciate the critical historical and doctrinal distinctions between Protestants and Baptists. You will find yourself much slower to call yourself a Protestant. after you understand some of these key things that we're going to talk about in this particular study. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Well, it's really neither. It's just going to help you to be able to articulate better where you stand with regard to certain truths. Number three, this study will help you become a confident defender, not of a denomination. Need to underline that. Not of a denomination, but of a rich heritage of biblical truth. That's what we're after, is a rich heritage of biblical truth and our understanding of it. That's why I inserted this slide. What this study will not be any day now. Let me just read it to you, you can catch up. I'll make these available, by the way, the full slide deck so you can have them for yourself as well. I'm gonna do that starting next week so we don't have to do this whole thing, okay? This will not be a study in which our aim is to promote denominational exclusivity or sectarian one-upsmanship. What is that? That's the thinking that we're Baptists and we're the one true church and all the other churches are destined for hell because they don't believe what we believe. That's not what this study is about. We are undertaking this study purely as a means of acknowledging the importance of doctrinal purity. in both orthodoxy, which is what you believe, and orthopraxy, which is how you put into practice what you believe. That's all we're doing in this study. Please don't misunderstand this to be where we Baptists come together and talk about how much better we are than everybody else. Okay? Okay, a quick chronology of church history. Let's take a look at church history from the bird's eye view, from the 30,000 foot view, if we might. You can just write these down, they'll appear again when they get good and ready. First we start with the Apostolic Age, which is AD 26 to 100. And again, we'll explain more in just a moment why we believe this to be the Apostolic Age, once we get to a more definitive place here. Secondly, actually this is the time, you know, you can tell by looking at it, it's the time when Jesus began his earthly ministry and the death of the last apostle. But then we have the Era of Transition. The Era of Transition, and that's AD 100 through 313. The Era of Transition. Again, this marks the period of gradual transition from primitive or New Testament Christianity and the rise of the ecclesiasticism and sacerdotalism that formed the basis for the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church. Don't be alarmed, we will go over those phrases, those words in just a minute in more detail. Then we have the Imperial Age, which is 313 to 476. This is the time of the Catholic state church under the Roman Empire in the age of the great ecumenical councils. Okay, so we get the imperial age, 313 to 476. Following that, we have the Middle Ages, 476 to 1453. 476 to 1453. This is the time frame. And the dating varies according to the importance given to certain criteria. If you'll read history, a lot of people are squishy on when the Middle Ages actually began and when they ended, but generally you'll find them within this time. Some begin with the fall of Rome in 476, others with Pope Gregory the Great in 590, some date the end of the Middle Ages with the Italian Renaissance around 1300, and others with the fall of Constance in 1453. I'm using the latter. of these particular choices. Following the Middle Ages, we see the Renaissance and the Reformation, 1453 to 1648. Please note, we consider these historical eras together because one is inherently related to the other. The Reformation was really not only a reaction to what was going on in the Roman Catholic Church at the time, the Reformation was also a reaction to many of the secular changes that were being brought on during the Renaissance. So we consider those together. The modern era, 1648 to the present, right? Not much to say about that. We'll have more to say as we go through the study. Now, let's look at an overview of the significant persons and events that are within those areas. We start with Jesus's birth between six and four BC. Does anybody know why we don't say Jesus was born on year one? There's a Roman monk by the name of Dionysius. And he was tasked with converting the calendar from the Julian way of thinking to the Gregorian way of thinking. And he made a mathematical error. And he made a mathematical error with regard to the founding of Rome. Subsequent to that, historians have corrected that error. He was off by four to six years. Therefore, we note that Jesus was probably born between 6 BC and 4 BC. It's just a mathematical error. It has nothing to do with the before common era, the BCE that many are fond of using today. It actually means before Christ's birth, but there was a mathematical error. Also, Caesar Tiberius was the Roman emperor, 14 to 37. Pontius Pilate was the procurator. You know that from your scriptures, from 26 to 36 AD. 26 and 27 AD, approximately, that's Jesus's early Judean ministry. His Samaritan ministry in around 27 AD. His Galilean ministry, 27 to 29 AD. His Parian ministry, 29 to 30 AD. In 30 AD, we begin to see the close of his earthly ministry. And in 30 AD, Thereabouts, we see the resurrection also taking place. Again, do not fear, we will get these out to you in the slide format, and we're gonna try to fix this TV issue. The Apostolic Era, 30 to 100 AD, the commissioning of the apostles in the year 30 AD, the martyrdom of Stephen, 33 to 35, the conversion of Saul, 34 through 37. The Epistle of James was written in 44 to 46. Paul's first missionary journey occurred in the year 48. The Epistle to the Galatians was written in about 48 or 49 AD. Paul's second missionary journey commenced in 51 AD. The letters of 1st and 2nd Thessalonians were written in 51 or 52. And Paul's third missionary journey was in 53 AD. Again, these are not for you to memorize. There will be no test. These are just to give you an overview of what exactly was transpiring during the earliest days of church history. The Apostolic Era continued. The Gospel of Mark, 50 to 55 AD. 1st and 2nd Corinthians, 53-57 AD. Romans, 58 AD. Paul imprisoned at Caesarea, 58-60. The Gospel of Luke, 58-61. Paul was taken prisoner to Rome in 61-63 AD. Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, and to Philemon, 60-63 AD. The Gospel of Matthew, 60-66 AD. And the great fire in Rome, the first persecution under Nero. Believers were ravaged by beasts, crucified, used for human torches in Roman celebrations. That all occurred in 64 AD. And we continue still. First Timothy and Titus, 62 to 64 AD. First and second Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and second Timothy, 64 to 68. Jesse's Florus is Roman Procurator 66-70. Look at the martyrdoms that occurred during this particular time frame, 66-70 AD. We see the martyrdom of John Mark, Peter, Paul, Aristarchus, Epaphras, Priscilla, Aquila, Andronicus, Munia, Silas, Onesiphorus, Porphyrios, Andrew, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, Simon, the Zealot, Judas Thaddeus, Matthias, Procorus, Parmenas, and Nicanor, all deacons, those mentioned before, Trophimus, Onesimus, and Dionysius, all martyred between 66 and 70 AD. Vespasian sat as the Roman emperor, 69 through 79. The final revolt of the Jewish zealots in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, 70 to 72. Titus was the Roman emperor, 79 to 81. Domitian, Roman emperor from 81 to 96. Josephus would write his great history of the Jews, 81 to 96. The general persecution of both Jews and Christians under Domitian, 93 to 96. Martyrdom of Luke, 93. John exiled to Patmos. 96. The Gospel of John, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John in Revelation were written between 90 and 98 AD. Timothy was martyred at Ephesus in 98 or so AD. This era extends from the death of the last apostle to the Edict of Milan, which is in 313. This era is referred to as transitional because it was at this point that the church began to transition, as I said earlier, from primitive New Testament Christianity to ecclesiasticism. That's that apostate, sacerdotal state religion. Sporadic persecutions from 100 to 248. The first general persecution, 249 to 260. Period of relative peace, 260 to 303. The second general persecution, 303 to 310. The Edict of Milan and Peace in 313. Okay, and that's really where our historical overview stops because we need to understand this thing called ecclesiasticism. Ecclesiasticism is a term that's used to describe really, again, the transition of the church from this New Testament primitive existence into what's called the church-state system. You're probably familiar with the church-state system. the distinction between clergy and laity began at this point. That's when the average believer was believed to be much different from those in the clergy, those in what they equated to be the New Testament priesthood. There was a development of an Episcopal system of church government during this time. There was a transition to sacerdotalism and sacramentalism, which we'll discuss in just a minute. and there was an emphasis on Catholic unity. You can only imagine, if you have a church-state system, every member of society belongs to the church. I mean, if you're a citizen, you're a member of the church, and the state runs the church. The church is the state, and the state is the church. and there should never be a division between the two. And this is what we see during the era of ecclesiasticism. The first partitioning of the Roman Empire between the East and the West really occurred in 285. Several individuals were vying for power during this particular time. In 312, Constantine defeated a man by the name of Maxentius. and eventually won the distinction of being the sole ruler in the West. Before the battle, you'll recall, and you probably have read this in history, Constantine allegedly saw a vision of a cross And he saw the Latin, hoc vensis, which means by this you shall conquer. And he took that to mean that the God of the Christians was on his side, and the victory he won, he attributed to the God of the Christians. That's the extent to which Constantine was a Christian. He didn't get much more Christian than that. He was Christian in name only. He was Christian because he won a major battle and won the rulership of the West. And he said, it's all attributed to this God of the Christians. This actually moved him to issue an edict of toleration. The edict of toleration was known as the Edict of Milan in 313. Not long after this, a man named Licinius, who was in the East, began to persecute Christians horribly. Licinius began this persecution. It lasted from 319 to 323. Constantine was not pleased by this. As the ruler in the west, he moved east. He conquered Licinius in 323 and became the sole ruler of the empire and the state persecution of Christians ended. So that kind of gives you an overview of what happened to establish this church-state system. Constantine said, look, I'm going to be the leader of this church state system. You can answer those questions on your notes. Now what is sacerdotalism? Which was a major component of this rise of ecclesiasticism. What is sacerdotalism? Does anybody know? Anybody want to speculate? No, that's different. That's sacramentalism. Sacerdotalism was the belief that there was a priesthood even in the church. Sacerdotalism teaches that the New Testament pastor is the equivalent of the Old Testament priest. And what does that mean practically speaking? Well, that means that only the priest can do things such as baptize people, administer the Lord's Supper, publicly preach and teach, and handle the funds of the church. This is how there came to be that distinction between clergy and laity. It's all based upon this sacerdotal idea that Pastor Kevin and I are imbued with some sort of supernatural recognition by God to be his priests. We're set apart. Now, let me say this about that. There are practical considerations to be made in terms of who baptizes, in terms of who administers the Lord's table, in terms of all the functions within a church. We know that God has gifted and called certain men to serve in a pastoral capacity, and to those men belong those functions. Why? It's a matter of protection. We reserve those functions because it's us who are going to give the ultimate account to God for how we shepherd the souls given under our care. It's not a power play. It's not saying we're better than you. It's just a recognition of our roles and responsibilities as those called to serve the local church in that capacity. I mean, I've been in churches where everybody's baptizing everybody and everybody's doing the Lord's table with everybody else. And you know, there can be a chaotic element to that too. And so if we do things like that, it's just for your protection. That's it. Again, it's not a power play or anything that we're trying to do outside the confines of the scriptures. So that's sastradogalism, the belief in clergy lady distinction, the priesthood of the pastorate. What is sacramentalism? There you go. It's the belief in the sacraments. Now, our Presbyterian brethren normally observe only two sacraments, right? But the Catholic Church has how many? Seven, at least, right? But the two sacraments, the Lord's table and baptism, our Presbyterian brethren hold those to be sacraments and not ordinances. What's the difference? Well, an ordinance is that which has been commanded by the Lord Jesus Christ to be observed as a memorial to the actual initiatory event. When we observe the Lord's table, we do so in memory of Christ, who instituted that with his apostles and his disciples. and he promised to enjoy that with us in the future. So we memorialize that. Baptism's the same way. When you come up and you get into this baptismal font, when you're baptized, you are making an identification with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. You're identifying your own death of the old man, the raising of newness to life, with what Jesus did, and you're showing it in a very picturesque, illustrative way. Now what's the difference between ordinances and sacraments? A sacrament is not just a memorial. A sacrament is that thing you do that is able to impart a certain amount of grace to you that you wouldn't have otherwise had. In other words, if you partake of the Lord's Supper, you're getting grace put into your account. Okay, that smacks of Roman Catholicism, by the way, doesn't it? That you have this treasury of grace that God has, and he dispenses it as he wills to various people. Also, if you get in the, or you don't get in the baptismal font in the Protestant churches, what you get, you get sprinkled. And in the process of being sprinkled, you are given grace. Now what's wrong with this view? What's wrong with that view? Why wouldn't you wanna come to church and get extra portions of grace? There you go. Absolutely, yeah, you guys are on the right page. Our grace account is full. If you're a child of God, you don't need any more grace. Sure, you need common grace. You need those graces that God dispenses daily to help you get through trials and to help you. But all of that falls under the umbrella of what? God's grace and salvation. We dare not pretend that we need more grace from God in order to make us more suitable for His kingdom. The Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Lutherans, the Anglicans, they will tell you that sacraments are capable of dispensing grace to you when you've already got all the grace that you need. So that's really what's wrong with that particular thing, sacramentalism. Catholic unity and the papacy. Actually, it was this sacramentalism and sacerdotalism that led to this idea of Catholic unity and the papacy. This began with the rise of the Episcopal form of government. In primitive New Testament Christianity, what sort of government do we see in the local church? Deacons and elders. Right? You have the elders who lead, the deacons who serve, and then you've got the congregation who supports both of those offices and comes to worship. What do we see though, when we enter into this phase of Catholic unity in the papacy? Well, we see this slow morphing from local church government, primitive New Testament church government. We see it start to morph. We start to see elders being appointed over other elders. Boo, when there should be plurality and parity within the eldership. We see then other elders in other churches, bigger churches, exercising authority over the elders in the smaller churches. These were known as bishops. Then we see what were known as metropolitan bishops, who then took it upon themselves to oversee the elders in all the churches in a metropolitan area. You can see where this is going, right? and you have diocesan bishops who have even a bigger area to oversee. Ultimately, this would lead to the appointment of the first Pope, Pope Gregory the Great, 590, 590 to 604. Now, what will you hear from a Roman Catholic if you say the first Pope was Pope Gregory the Great, acknowledged so in 590 AD? You'll hear shrieks, you'll hear gasps, you'll hear groans. Why? Because Peter was the first Pope. Funny thing about that though, outside of Roman Catholic history, no one acknowledges Peter as the first Pope. Why? Because it was Pope Gregory the Great who actually announced himself as Pontifex Maximus, the Supreme Bishop. the bishop of all bishops, Pope Gregory the Great. Well, again, you can see where this got us, right? Now you have a succession of popes who live there in the Vatican City and their job is to rule over, monolithically rule over the entire church the world over. Now, understand How that happened? We have this primitive New Testament Christianity that began innocently enough according to scriptural ordinance and guidance, and then it just spun out of control into this church-state system, began by Constantine, who, oh, by the way, began the practice of infant baptism as well. Why did he do that? For taxes. Who said that? Good. For taxes, if every member of your society over the age of accountability at the time, 13, is a citizen and you're making X number of dollars off of them in tax revenue, what's the best way you can think of to generate even more tax revenue for the church-state system? Let's get the whole family. Now we'll make children members of the church and by the way, taxpayers. We'll make them taxpaying citizens as well and I'll be able to exact taxes from all of them. Okay, we need some sort of initiatory right. Some sort of ceremony that will bring them from being mere infants into the visible church. Back in the Old Testament, that was easy. Circumcision. What could it be in the new? baptism, which is why Presbyterians today say baptism replaces circumcision as the sign and seal of God's covenant with mankind. So he started baptizing babies. That's where it began. Don't listen to them when they say it's on the basis of good and necessary inference. It's all those family passages in the New Testament. That's where we get our doctrine from. No, you don't. You got it from Constantine. And it began because he wanted more taxes out of his people. What was the practice in primitive Christianity? You believe, you're baptized. Believe, baptized. Believe, baptized. That's the scriptural mandate. How do they get around it? Well, they make up all kinds of things about that in order to support their church state government. Now, during these centuries of church state involvement, there were various groups that had begun to situate themselves in the mountainous regions of Germany, France. These are the Vaudois, the Waldensies, the Albigensies. These groups began to situate themselves in the Piedmont valleys of the Alps, namely again in Austria, Germany, and France. And their spiritual ancestors included these people, the Montanists. The Montanists. You'll see it in just a minute, maybe. Montanism was really the most prominent religion or group of Christians in Asia Minor in North Africa. It derives its name from one Montanist who claimed to have a supernatural prophetic gift. He actually had two prophetesses that would travel with him, Priscilla and Maximilla. And they would travel with him and make prophetic utterances. It was kind of a whacked out sort of take on early Christianity. But according to one prominent historian, listen to this, he says, Montanism was not a new form of Christianity, nor were the Montanists a new sect. On the contrary, Montanism was simply a reaction to the old primitive church against the tendency of the day to strike a bargain with the world and arrange herself comfortably to it. The Montanists, and the only reason we mention them, they're not very reliable. Theologically, doctrinally, the only reason we mention them, this is one of the groups that was staunchly against the church state establishment known as the Catholic Church. Why? They believed in New Testament primitive Christianity. They did at least believe in the model presented in the New Testament itself for how the church was to be run. Okay? Tertullian was actually a Montanist. I don't know if you understand who Tertullian was, he was one of our early church fathers. He wrote many, many books defending their beliefs. Let me also say this, when you hear about the people that we're talking about, the Montanists, the Novatians, so on and so forth, you'll probably hear a lot of negative press against them in history books. Please understand that most of the history books that reflect negatively on these groups were written by people who are of the mindset of the church state system. In other words, they're just passing on what has been said about these people by the Roman Catholics and by the Protestants after them about their unworthiness to be a part of the Christian fold. Read it with like a sideward glance. Don't take it as seriously as you might because a lot of these people were actually good, upstanding Christians in their own right. The Novationists, 249 to 251. Novationists really were a revival of Montanism. They get their name from Novation, who was a conservative presbyter. Their beliefs are generally summarized by four characteristics. Four characteristics. Purity of church members. So you know where we're going. Purity of church members. What does that mean? Well, the Novationists believed that no one should be admitted to the church except those who believe. They protected, guarded and protected a regenerate church membership. And you can imagine how this went over in a world of church state system where you had infants belonging to the visible church. Second thing that marks them out is church discipline. They believe that churches remained pure only when biblical church discipline was followed. Number three, they believed in church autonomy. They believed that every church, every New Testament church, was independent and autonomous. People ask me all the time why we're not members of the Southern Baptist Convention or, you know, even things like ARBCA, you know, can be sketchy although I think the benefits now outweigh the detriments to being part of some of those fine organizations because there is no hierarchy. But things like the Southern Baptist Convention, things like large presbyteries, things like synods in the Lutheran Church, all they are is an establishment of hierarchy. They deny the autonomy of the local church. In other words, if they don't like the pastor, the synod or the presbytery will get rid of that man even over and above the opinion of the people served by that man. That's not New Testament primitive Christianity. That is this church state system set up under the Episcopal form of government designed to exercise authority over those under them. The fourth thing, they believed in baptism and they believed in believers baptism. They re-baptized those who had been baptized as infants. Okay? This leads to Donatism. Donatism, 303 to 305. Who were the Donatists? Well, the Donatists didn't vary much from Montanists or Novationists. but they did insist more on a rigorous church discipline, a pure membership of the local church, and the rejection of unworthy ministers. They would discipline even their ministers. Later in their history, they opposed the interference of the state in religious matters, as we should all. Now, what do we call all of these people collectively? And more, there are more to be added to this. As I said, the Waldensians, the Albigensies, the Fontois. What do we call them collectively? Who said that? John, what do we call them? Anabaptists. There's a lot of misunderstanding with regard to the Anabaptists. There are people who think the Anabaptists were just a group that existed in church history, and they just rebaptized people, and they were called the Anabaptists. No, they weren't called Anabaptists until much later when historians began to reflect, well, kind of contemporary, but they reflected on what they were actually known for and they were known for re-baptizing people. Why would they re-baptize people? Because they saw infant baptism as ineffectual, unnecessary. And they believed, again, in that primitive New Testament system of church government. So what we get from this, what did you do to my, what did you do to my screen there, brother? Trying to fix it, trying to change the wheel on the aircraft in mid-flight. That's okay. Yeah, I don't know what the deal is. At any rate, the stage has been set. Fast forward to the actual beginning of the Reformation. Those who had been a part of the church state system began to smell something fishy in Denmark. As men who had been previously unable to study the scriptures in their own language and in their own way, became more educated, could actually read the scriptures and interpret the scriptures, became educated in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew. They started to understand that what they were being told from the pulpit is not what they read in scriptures. And so what happened? The Reformation happened. Martin Luther nails his 95 Theses on the wall of the Wittenberg Church. And he does that in protest against the teachings of the Catholic Church, namely with regard to indulgences. and other things that were happening in the Catholic Church. The insistence on the supremacy of the Pope and things like this. So the Reformation was an attempt made by those within the Catholic Church to reform her. Now remember that, from within the Catholic Church, they were seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church. Calvin died a Roman Catholic. He was not a Protestant. Luther himself was still a Catholic when he died. He didn't start the Lutheran faith. Others later would pattern themselves after his teaching and start their own denomination. These groups were known as protestors. We get the word Protestant from that. They were protestant against the things that were going on in the Roman Catholic Church and they wanted to see those things corrected. They still held on, though, to what? The idea that there was a church-state system. They believed that there was a validity in the church-state system. They believed that the Roman Catholic Church, if reformed sufficiently, could still be that representative body of Christ on this earth. They actually believed that. They didn't just drop Roman Catholicism and say, okay, we're going to start these other denominations and call them Protestant. They were protesting, trying to change the church from within. Now, what happened in the course of history? Well, they did splinter off and form their own denominations. We get Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, Methodism, the Anglican Church, which Henry VIII and that whole thing, that's an interesting thing in and of itself, but we get all of these Protestant churches Where were the Baptists? They were always there. They were these groups who had nothing to protest. All the groups we just mentioned. Those who hid in the valleys of the Piedmont under the security of the Alps, those who ran from their persecutors, both in the Catholic Church and from the Protestant Church, which is what Verdun's book will cover in great detail. But those were the Anabaptists who would later be called Baptists. That's where we trace our identity. We trace our identity back to those original believers who had nothing to protest, in fact, who hid from Catholic and Reformer alike. Now, how did they do that successfully? Well, they did that by a reliance on God. They did that by a reliance on the purity of the doctrine contained in the Holy Scriptures. They did that by an understanding of primitive New Testament Christianity. They did not get entangled in the affairs of the state. They did not believe in this church-state system. They rejected it outright and followed the scriptures instead of following what had become this monstrosity created by man. This is why Baptists are not Protestants. We're not Protestants. We've always had an exclusively biblical faith. Now, I don't expect you to write these down, but let me give you some quotes here that are helpful. Again, they're probably not going to show up on the screen. I'll get this slide deck to you next week, or maybe even online this week, maybe through email. Listen, Bill Downing said this, Protestantism exists essentially as a reformation of the Romish Church, not a full return or conformity to the New Testament standard and pattern. Do you realize that most Protestant churches, even our close association with our PCA brethren, most Protestant churches are in vast need of reform yet? In what areas? Well, in one area alone. They need to stop baptizing babies. That proves that they're not reformed, right? They've not reformed that aspect of what they believe anyway. They need to abandon this hierarchical system of synods and presbyteries and councils and all this as exercising sway and influence over the local church. The local church is autonomous and independent according to the scriptures. says, successionism among Baptists is not a linked chain of churches or ministers uninterrupted and traceable at this distant day. In other words, there were some, there's the old landmark people who believe that we can trace our very blood back to John the Baptist. And we're all following John the Baptist's lead and we're all Baptist because we can trace our lineage. Folks, that's just like Roman Catholicism saying that they can trace the lineage of the Popes back to Peter. Don't do that. We can't do that. And S.H. Ford makes that clear. He says, the true and defensible doctrine is that baptized believers have existed in every age since John baptized in the Jordan and have met as a baptized congregation in covenant relationship and fellowship where an opportunity permitted. That's the nature of Baptists by and large from ancient days. W.A. There has never been a day since the organization of the First New Testament Church in which there was no genuine Church of the New Testament existing on earth. The church existed in several independent churches, which maintained separation from popery since early times in the southern parts of France, as well in some parts of England, Scotland, Bohemia, and also in the Piedmont. Against these churches, popes have initiated many persecutions, but they continue to this day. J.J. Dermot. We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, were the original Waldensians, and who have long in history received the honor of that origin. On this account, the Baptists may be considered as the only Christian community which has stood since the days of the Apostles, and as a Christian society which has persevered and preserved the pure doctrine of the Gospel through all ages." Spurgeon. Now this is bold. We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. Only Spurge could say that. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation. We were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born. We never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ and owe our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season. have always had honest and holy adherents persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect. So, there you have it. We're Baptists not because we can trace our lineage back to the Reformation. We're Baptists not because we just choose to be Baptists and it's cool to be in a denomination like the Baptists because there's so many friendly people here. We're Baptists because we can identify with those ancient groups who insisted on pure doctrine, who insisted on the purity of the church, who insisted on guarding and protecting a regenerate church membership. who believed in rightly dividing the word of truth, who understood the word of God to say one thing and one thing only and not many things, who used not good and necessary inference, but legitimate translational techniques to arrive at the truth of what the word of God says. That's why we're Baptists. Now, do we take pride in that? Do we wear the Baptist banner and tell everybody, I'm a Baptist and you're not, pity on you? No. No, we don't do that. Again, this is what we're not trying to do. What are we trying to do? Why go through all this? Why go through the points that Verdun brings out in his book about our identity? Why is that important? Let me hear from you. Absolutely. It's that history thing. How many of you were good students of history in high school? How have you hated history in high school? Oh, brother. Here we go. The book itself is a very interesting work, and I trust that as we go through the next several weeks, you're going to really get to understand why I say that. But that's the point exactly. John, you had something else? Horribly, right? horribly. So when we say we're Baptists, that's a dangerous thing to say today, right? Right. And that's what I think Debbie was getting at. It's important to distinguish the history behind what has morphed into the man-made tradition. That's a modern phenomenon. That really began with the separation between the General Baptist and the Particular Baptist. Particular Baptist went the Calvinistic route, General Baptist went the Arminian route. And it really boils back a lot to Finney. Finney was, for all intents and purposes, one of the most horrible things that ever happened on the landscape of the church at large. Yeah, it did. Yeah, and Eastern Europe, where I lived there in Moldova, the Baptists are different even there than what they are here, because I mean, the women had to wear dresses and have to wear dresses and, you know, the covers on their heads and all that stuff. Right, yeah. Yeah, right. Exactly right. Anybody else? Yeah, Jeremy. Yeah, right. to understand the church today without knowing anything of its origins in the apostles through the early church fathers, if I can call them that, you mentioned? Yep. Or at least, I wouldn't be father to anybody. Yeah, I know what you're saying. So you've got to understand the context of the church and to see the thread of God's providence from the beginning of it up until now to maybe understand better where it's going. Absolutely. Right. Absolutely, and that's a very valid point, and a very good point, because Kevin and I were talking earlier about, we could go all the way back to Genesis. We could. I mean, it'd take me like ten times the amount of time I want to spend on it, but we could go all the way back to Genesis, because like you said, God has that, and I dare call it this, you'll understand, that scarlet threat of redemption. You know, it's overused in most Baptist churches, but there is that pure line that goes through all the turmoil, all the persecutions, all the changes and upheavals, all the traditions of men. There is that pure line. And that's what we as a local church want to be a part of. We want to rightly divide the word of truth. We want to defend the truth against error. And that's a noble thing to want to do, but you've got to understand history. in order to be able to do that. You know, the emerging church, emerging church, that's nothing new. That's just another way that history is really, contrary to what Downing said, in a way it is cyclical. Nothing new under the sun, as Solomon said. But it's our job to avoid that. Not so we can be better than everybody else. But don't you want to be as scriptural as you can be about what you believe about the local church? Understanding church history will make you a better churchman. Church woman. Church person. Churchman. John's over there giving me the... Anybody else? Yeah, John. I just had a quick question. What was the time frame for the Catholic community and the papacy when they started separating this bishop and archbishop? It began about 385, 390. Yeah, and that's why I pointed out that the Montanists, the Novationists, the Donatists, all those people fought against change from the very beginning. Yeah. And so the Catholic Church has a real problem then, because they claim that this hierarchy was passed down from these people, from the early Church Fathers, to the... One example I've heard used was the Council in Jerusalem. When Paul goes to the Council in Jerusalem, what was the Council in Jerusalem? Formative, not normative. When they open a new Walmart, they send people from headquarters down to run it until it gets on its feet, right? Same thing. Yeah. Oh, of course. No, no, no, no, no, no. It was those who knew informing those who didn't. And in that way, we would do the same thing. If we were to plant a church, a church plant, we would send John Williams off somewhere to start pastoring a church with our oversight and with our protection and with our instruction. I've been ragging about that for years. Not Tertullian, no. Jim, go ahead, you can shed some light here. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. They're all heretics, yeah. Yep. Absolutely. Yeah. Some of those guys were, I guess that would be the question then, how many of those guys, because you said, you mentioned that these Anabaptists did not recognize the paedo-baptism because it was ineffective. I said some of the Anabaptists would, yeah because it meant nothing, right. That's why they were called re-baptizers. Right, but not because it, was ineffective, but because it just didn't... No, understand what I mean by ineffective. It had no effect. They thought it had an effect. They thought infant baptism would make you a member of the visible church. And when I say ineffective... No. No. The Anabaptists re-baptized because they saw infant baptism as ineffective and not necessary. But... Okay. Yeah. The Anabaptists were the original Baptists. You've been without sleep for how long now? Okay, we understand. And again, just to throw a plug Jim's way, if you have any questions offside and you're with Jim, and Jim's a great fan of church history, He's a wealth of, he's a plethora of information there as well, so use him up. You were thinking that Jim's a plethora of church? No. No, they would have held to the memorial view. They were not like the Protestants or the proto-Protestants in any way. So none of the Anabaptist early church fathers held to either infant baptism or that the baptism imputed something to... No. No, that didn't happen until the rise of sacramentalism, which came with sacerdotalism. Sacramentalism taught that there was something to be gained from that. And again, what better way to get your people to come to church? If I can convince you that I'm a priest and that you'll not get any of God's blessings unless I give them to you through ordinances or through ritual, you'll be at church. That's why they have the Lord's Supper every Sunday. Because people are dependent on that. And the best way to create a regularly attending people is to create a people who are dependent. Yeah, yeah. Yes, yes. Yes, absolutely. Presbyterian, that's why they're still paid a Baptist today. They did not follow their own battle cry, which was simple reformata. Always reforming, they stopped. Yeah, so I've begun to deform instead of reform. Yeah. No. It just says as often as you do this do in remembrance of me. Jesus said as often as you do this do in remembrance of me. So we do it monthly just not because it's mandated in scripture. We just do it monthly. We could do it every Lord's Day. But you know for exigency sake, you know, for logistics and things like that. Plus, I think you need to give people some breathing room between the times we take it, because it's supposed to be special and not just routine. And I think it gives people some time for introspection, some time to grow. So, yeah. It is The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. David, you got your copyright? Hold it up so everybody can see it. Amazon. You can get used copies, too, for relatively cheap. I recommend everybody get it, because we're going to be going through it, and we're not going to read the whole thing together, but we're going to hit the high points, because it's very important, again, to know where we've come from and where we're going. Does anybody else have anything? No? OK. Let's close and work. Our Father, we are grateful, Lord, that there is a reminder in history that there have always been a remnant of faithful people who, down through the centuries, have subscribed wholly to scriptural doctrine, who have not bought into the traditions and man-made practices that infect so many churches today. Father, we long to be that people. We long for this, not so that we can boast about being Baptists instead of Presbyterians, Lutherans, so on and so forth. We long for this because we know to the extent that we are true to your revealed word, that we will honor and glorify you the most. Father, that is our desire. to see one another grow in Christ's likeness, and to see you understood as you seek to provide us that understanding from your word and your word alone. May we forever be faithful in that regard, not falling prey to this particular phase or that particular thing in history. May we be a people of the book, of people who long to be those ambassadors of Jesus Christ that you have called us out of this world to be. Bless us as we undertake this study. We thank you so much for the teaching that has occurred this day. We ask, Lord, that you would help us to recall what we've learned so that we might glorify you all the more. We pray these things in Christ's name, amen. Hi, I'm Pastor Tim Goad of Free Grace Baptist Church in San Antonio, Texas. Let me ask you a rather personal question. Are you in a solid Bible-believing, Bible-teaching church? A good way to determine this is to consider a few very important telltale signs that might indicate that you're not. Is the church you attend predominantly interested in programs designed more to attract the masses than to minister God's Word so as to benefit the souls of God's people? How is worship defined at your church? Is it focused more on music, multimedia presentations, and other elaborate productions than on the faithful, expository preaching and teaching of God's Word? Do you feel personally connected, having established biblical accountability with the brothers and sisters with whom you worship each week? Or do you find yourself feeling as though your church is actually little more than a spiritual box that you check off each week? Let me remind you what the Apostle Paul in the fourth chapter of his letter to the Ephesian church said about the purpose of the local church. Paul says, And he, God, gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds, and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of the ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ, so that we may no longer be children tossed to and fro by the waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness and deceitful schemes, Rather, speaking the truth in love, which I might add that's the truth contained only in the Word of God, we are to grow up in every way into Him who is the Head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love." Speaking to the believers in his first letter, the Apostle Peter points this out. He says, like newborn babes, We are to long for the pure milk of the Word, so that by it we may grow in respect to salvation, if we have tasted the kindness of the Lord. Have you tasted the kindness of the Lord in salvation? If so, do you long to understand the Word of God, so that by it you can grow more into Christ's likeness, and having grown, make more of a profound difference in the world through the spreading of the gospel message? If you're in a church that doesn't have as its main focus the faithful preaching and teaching of the Word of God, why don't you consider visiting us at Free Grace Baptist Church of San Antonio? We're located at 1801 Terrain Boulevard. That's right off of Interstate 10 and West Avenue. Our services each Lord's Day are at 9.45 and 11 a.m. and at 1.30 p.m. Prayer meeting is held every Wednesday night at 7 o'clock. If you'd like to know more and perhaps listen to the preaching and teaching that goes on at Free Grace, please visit our sermon audio website at www.sermonaudio.com forward slash Free Grace Baptist. Thank you and may God richly bless you as you continue to faithfully serve him.