The historicity of the Church

In the latest Sola Scriptura thread, my friend Per Crucem posted:

This in reply to the unbroken line of the historical Christian Churches: Oriental Orthodox (OO), Eastern Orthodox (EO), and Catholic (CC).

All of us (Me being Catholic) can trace our undisputed origin to the Apostles, and therefore to Christ. We each blame the other for separating :o but we all owe our existence to Christ and the evangelization of the Apostles themselves.

It is a very common argument that we are not the Church that Jesus founded.

I am not interested in ideas, opinions, or gut feelings. I want dry, cold and hard facts. We can produce dry, cold and hard facts, so we expect nothing less in return.

This brings a very dramatic question in place…
When, Where, and How did the Church that Jesus founded disappear?**

This always bothered me too. Acts pretty clearly set the precedent that when an apostle dies, his office is refilled by ordination of a new apostle (i.e. replacing Judas Iscariot) and Christ himself set the precedent for moving beyond 12 apostles when Saul was knocked off his horse, renamed Paul and commissioned as an apostle (not coincidentally becoming the apostle famous for preaching the gospel beyond the12 tribes of Israel).

If people want to claim that apostolic authority ended with the death of the last apostle, shouldn’t they have some sort of Scriptural basis for that? Especially since Scripture itself actually seems to illustrate the opposite?


History tells us that the first Christians were called the baptizers from whence came the Baptist

Ha Ha. good joke. The Baptists were founded by John Smyth in Amsterdam in 1608, do you not know your own history. :rotfl: Next joke please.:okpeople::signofcross:

I’m confused… either he’s joking and you’re right to think it was a joke, or you’re being sarcastic. Assuming he truly believes what has been posted, and you truly believe such is false; perhaps the two of you could have a discussion about it?

Sorry, I’m new at this.

I don’t know if he was joking or not, but I assume the above poster Celtic Maiden would consider such a statement to have the same historical validity as claiming Queen Elizabeth 1 never existed, or that Russian colonized the america’s in the eleventh century, which explains the laughter.

I am being serious its sad when one believe a lot of porky’s - Baptists were founded by John Smyth in Amsterdam 1608 easily proven, ask Google.

Sure. I’ve actually never heard of an early Christian group that called themselves, “Baptizers.” But you’ll never get a different point of view if you scare all the newbie Protestants away.

What Google says.

With the spread of the Reformation through the work of Calvin and Knox, we see the next great impact of the Gospel in 17th century England. It is here that we begin to see the seed bed of the Baptist movement

This group came to be known as General Baptists because they believed in a “general” atonement.[4] The General Baptists also had a distinct belief that Christians could face the possibility of “falling from grace”. The two primary founders of the General Baptist movement were John Smyth and Thomas Helwys.

The earliest General Baptist Church was thought to be founded about 1608 or 1609. Its chief founder was John Smyth (1570-1612) and it was located in Holland. Smyth’s history begins in England where he was ordained as an Anglican priest in 1594. Soon after his ordination, his zeal landed him in prison for refusal to conform to the teachings and practices of the Church of England. He was an outspoken man who was quick to challenge others about their beliefs but was just as quick to change his own positions as his own personal theology changed. Smyth continually battled the Church of England until it became obvious that he could no longer stay in fellowship with this church. Thus, he finally broke totally from them and became a “Separatist”.

Of course not! The original 12 all died! What is it that these folks are alleging? That one is therefore justified to innovate in “restoring” the original Church? As with all “bible” Christians, I think they are then forced into reverse-engineering the faith from the partial written record…

A process which is little different from backing your car up until the odometer reads zero, then proclaiming that you must be at the factory.

This is the reformers’ implied “invisible apostasy” theory as well as the LDS “great apostasy” theory.

The problem with either theory is that they must be very heavily nuanced in order to avoid making Jesus a liar.


See, that’s not so hard.

It has to be taken as a joke… A little reading into Scriptures themselves tell us:

[bibledrb]Acts 11:26[/bibledrb]

I’m not so sure, as the poster is tagged as “protestant” so perhaps the poster was serious. Not saying what he said was correct though.

My friend, we have to take it lightly or we’ll go insane…

The first Christians were not called Baptists. They were called The way and also known as the Nazareans.

It didn’t, the church is anywhere where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

That includes my church, yours, most of ours in fact. Last time I checked I was visible.

I do take it lightly personally. But when someone new comes with a different point of view, presents it and gets:

HAHAHA, good joke bud!!! LOLOLOL

The chances are he won’t stick around. My two cents.

I think that the Protestant has to answer for the fact that he simultaneously confesses two contradictory things: that the Church was established by Christ and neither has nor will ever cease to exist (Matthew 16), and the true church was completely absent from the Earth from AD 1000-1500, at least.

People knew them as this and that; but it seems as if the earliest Christians considered themselves, “Christian.” However, they also considered their Church One and Universal; I don’t think this has changed, as we are still in the same Universal Church, going by the strict meaning of the word.

First was at Antioch: Acts 11:26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Paul on trial Acts 26:28And Agrippa said to Paul, “In a short time would you persuade me to be a Christian?”29And Paul said, “Whether short or long, I would to God that not only you but also all who hear me this day might become such as I am—except for these chains.”

And Peter in his letter 1 Peter 4:6"Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name."

So the Disciples were “Christians” first, likewise Paul and Peter proves this as well. Interestingly enough, the Acts says they were “called Christians.”

Tacitus 116ish

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.

We were labeled as Christians by the Apostles and Disciples, and were called so by others.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit