General Baptists were just a small percentage in the 1600s?
PJ is right about you needing to bone up on Baptist history.
From the Reformed Reader website:
http://www.reformedreader.org/btimline.htm
In 1660,
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Azusa St. Revival- 105th anniversary
- Thread starter Luke2427
- Start date
General Baptists were just a small percentage in the 1600s?
PJ is right about you needing to bone up on Baptist history.
From the Reformed Reader website:
http://www.reformedreader.org/btimline.htm
In 1660,
What was in England is not enough to prove your point.
Try again.
BTW, notice two things- EVEN in England which was in a state of great frustration with the Puritans and their Calvinism which sought to purify the Anglican church- even in THAT environment according to the data you provided the General Baptists were still in the minority.
To make your point you are going to have to produce data that expresses the percentage of Baptists worldwide (the whole of Great Britain and America which came to be in the latter part on the first century of Baptist history).
Keep trying.
I see what you mean now and I agree. I've been critical of that theology myself. The "neither Calvinist nor Arminian but am a biblicist" crowd. They believe the Bible and we don't, didn't you hear about that? They are theological chameleons, uncommitted to a consistent hermeneutic, avoiding labels; not so that they can fit in with any crowd, but so that they can be different and critical of any crowd.
Yes. This is a SERIOUS problem that I am afraid MANY Baptists do not realize.
Whenever one studies and discovers what he considers to be a truth in the Scripture, he needs to have the intelligence and humility to submit his discovery to thousands of years of Christian beliefs.
If he can find it nowhere- then he ought to REALLY consider that it may be wrong.
This haphazard treatment of doctrine which these new nameless theology adherers display is, imo, dark and dangerous.
It is the EXACT SAME attitude that gave us Pentecostalism, JW's, Mormons, Christian Science, AND popery (Maryolatry, praying to the saints, indulgences, excathedra, etc...).
Robert Snow
New Member
I consider Calvinism much more dangerous than what the Charismatics teach. They at least understand that God doesn't desire man to sin and that He doesn't want anyone to perish outside of Christ.
Then you gotta messed up understanding of Calvinism there Robert.
I put him on ignore. You're wasting your time.
There are a couple of these nameless theology guys whose ideas are so outrageous and unfounded and ridiculous and adolescent that every Calvinst on this board ought to put them on ignore, imo.
We keep them alive on here by talking to them.
If none of us would ever respond to their nonsense they would disappear.
That would be a blessing for all thinking people.
Unlike Arminianism and Calvinism, Pentecostalism is NOT historical. It is NOT a variation of ANYTHING that truly Christian people have believed since the Apostles. I have a problem with that- as should you and every other Christian who cares about doctrine.
This new Independent Baptist theology that took over SBC a hundred years ago (I know when Independents arose. Their theology existed before they did coming down as a variation of the doctrines of Finney as best I can tell) is also NOT a variation of anything any Christian group has ever believed.
It is NOT systematized because it cannot be. Since it is a hodge podge of doctrines they eclectically put together to suit them- some doctrines cannot be reconciled with others.
It is utter nonsense and I honestly believe that TRULY educated and intelligent people BY AND LARGE cannot adhere to this. Good people- sure. Well meaning people- absolutely. Godly people even. But not deeply thoughtful people.
It is dangerous because it is built on an arrogance that haphazardly abandons what Christians have worked out over two thousand years of history. It is arrogance in that it says- "Christian history and orthodoxy be HANGED! We don't NEED it!"
This new Independent Baptist theology that took over SBC a hundred years ago (I know when Independents arose. Their theology existed before they did coming down as a variation of the doctrines of Finney as best I can tell) is also NOT a variation of anything any Christian group has ever believed.
It is NOT systematized because it cannot be. Since it is a hodge podge of doctrines they eclectically put together to suit them- some doctrines cannot be reconciled with others.
It is utter nonsense and I honestly believe that TRULY educated and intelligent people BY AND LARGE cannot adhere to this. Good people- sure. Well meaning people- absolutely. Godly people even. But not deeply thoughtful people.
It is dangerous because it is built on an arrogance that haphazardly abandons what Christians have worked out over two thousand years of history. It is arrogance in that it says- "Christian history and orthodoxy be HANGED! We don't NEED it!"
As a friend & Brother I ask that you belay judgment on your fellow brethren because its not for you to judge....only One can do this. Rather show love & patience with all
My mantra is that the best criticism of the bad is "the practice of the better."
So brethren, do not waste the next 20 years of your life being against anybody, any group, any institution etc. Just go ahead and do it better.
Christ is Lord!
He's done nothing different from what you or I or anybody else on bb does.
I like the mantra but don't understand why you would confront JD.
I have been rightly confronted for my own pride and arrogance many times, and have a continuing need for that, no doubt. And the pride and arrogance of those claiming the title of "biblicist", a supposedly superior position implying that neither Calvinist nor Arminians ahere to scripture, should be confronted.
By the way, Classic/Wesleyan/FreeWillBaptist Arminianism is far more biblical than so-called "biblicists". At least they have a consistant hermeneutic.
You know, what Baptist who refer to themselves as biblicist should do is refer to themselves as "Lutheranistic Baptists" - for the heavy reliance upon alleged paradox in scripture makes them a perfect fit with the Lutheran view.
have to realisr though that there are different strands of Baptist thought over the years..
Some more reformed"5 pointers"
Some more "tradional" baptists "4 pointers"
Some more free will "arminion " based
that is a different deal than speaking on Spiritual Gifts and Holy spirit!
You are wrong here. Beware of anything that is "reformed," "revised," etc.
Your doctrine has been changed. It was reformed during the Reformation. Hence the word "reformed." That particular doctrine did not exist before the Reformation. For 1600 years no one held to "reformed" doctrine. Then Calvin came along. He got a following of believers; set up his own state-church in Geneva, and persecuted those that did not agree with him. This "Reformer" had "reformed" his doctrine to his liking. It wasn't like it was before his time. It was new and novel. It was "reformed," and thus the name.
In the Bible you don't find "reformed" doctrine but doctrine that comes from the prophets and the Apostles, that which we term "Biblical." We find Paul going on three missionary journeys and starting approximately 100 churches, each of them independent of each other. That is where independent churches originated from. We find them studying on their own, as per Acts 17:11 to see if that which was preached to them was true to the Scriptures or not. This is what you call a dangerous doctrine. And yet it is a well established and cherished Baptist Distinctive, not at all nameless. We obey the command: "Study to show yourself approved...," not study Calvin to show the DOG approved.
Our doctrines, as far as the IFB is concerned go straight back to the Bible, and on a one to one basis cannot be successfully challenged by the reformed.
I recommend it also. MacArthur dates the beginning of the Pentecostal movement to ca. 1901. Remember, that although MacArthur gives good information about the Charismatic Movement, he himself is not a Baptist.
You associate Finney with the Baptists. In reality Finney had nothing to do with the Baptists. He was a heretic. His Oberlin Theology was denounced by the Baptists. By statements such as that you show that your history of the Baptists is messed up, and not accurate at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
I see...absolute truth lies in either calvinism or arminianism. If there are errors found in one or the other we should blindly accept them, not question them as they have been nicely boxed and wrapped in order to receive a name. As it is written in 1 Opinions 2:5 "Therefore, any teachings that cannot be approved by Jacob or John is anathema"
The irony is you guys in your "name-ful" theology cannot even agree on everything...so who in your own camp do you label 'nameless'? Luke is clearly not orthodox in his calvinism as He believes in a mysterious, nameless soteriology apart from faith in Christ for a privileged group of humans while stating God desires and authors sin while NEEDING it to be glorified. Now, do you agree with all of this, and if not, which one of you holds to the "nameless theology"?
Would you say Tom Butler holds to a nameless theology? You recall he doesn't believe in Augustinian original sin, right? Is he arminian, calvinist or other? Be careful how you vote as your answer will not only condemn him, but yourself too.
Charasmatic Chaos is good to read by John M., but do think he tends to lump ALL charasmatics/pentacostalist with same brush...
2 more good books to read on this subject, to give a "balance" to Charasmatic Chaos are:
Christianity in Crisis by hank hankgraff
A Different Gospel by DR Mcconnell
This last book VERY informative, as he is a charasmatic that shows us that the groups like WoF, Modern Apostles/Prophets, positive confession, divine health etc all spring from EM Kenyon and Christian Science, not from Bible, and all are cultic groups that are om fridge of Pentcostalism, and aree NOT to be seen as being 'Christian"
Last edited by a moderator:
My concern is with the smug superiority of some of those that claim to be "biblicists". You're putting a lot of words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Possibly, but based on your agreement with Luke and what you posted I stand by what I asked. I'm often lumped into this nameless theology crowd Luke like to throw around as an insult and was just pointing out that this could apply to him and you as well.
I've been clear.
This new nameless theology that you people invented for yourselves to suit yourselves which consists of an eclectic hodge-podge of doctrines from all kinds of sources has no historicity.
It is not systematized because it cannot be. It is a bunch of disjointed beliefs that do not go together in any sensible way.
It is LITERALLY newer than Pentecostalism and is a result of the same spirit and, imo, backwater ignorance that gave rise to Pentecostalism. It is a spirit of arrogance that feels no responsibility to the Faith fought for, worked out and handed down by Christians throughout the ages.
Southern Baptists were once THOROUGHLY Calvinistic. As best I can tell it was the IFBers who influenced them to abandon their original theology for this new stuff.
The IFBers' spirit of independence is really immeasurable arrogance.
Perhaps you can learn some of their history through this IFBer:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1667007&postcount=99