Featured Sympathy for the Arminian

What makes you avoid a question that has been asked several times of you. I will restate it for you. What makes you think that God is obligated to transfer 100% knowledge to you of His inner workings for the doctrine to be legitimate?

 

Just a note on this - since I happen to be reading a Baptist history book right now. From what I understand there would have been the Early church and as the Catholic church starting to come up, you see luther nailing his 95 complaints, from there a split occurred between infant baptism and Believers baptism, thus Anabaptists were forged. Not only were they persecuted by the Catholic church, but the reformers (notably Zwingli) would drown them by anchor as a way to mock them for their immersion Baptism beliefs. The Anabaptists, never had opportunity to write out a series of books in theology, however they would stand with the Reformers on essential issues (such as the Trinity) However it is noted that Anabaptists did take note in a personal decision of Faith being made. Thus the two notable differences would be 1) Believers baptism by immersion, and 2) a personal decision of faith.

(Book can be found @ http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802808867/?tag=baptis04-20)

There is a reason why you see "REFORMED Baptist" on signs, It is historically noted that Reformed theology (specifically election) was not held to by our fore fathers in our denomination.

Just something to add. This is personally why, I refuse to be told im an Arminian, And I am most definitely not a Calvinist.

Anyway... you can all continue. :wavey: :type:

 

JG,

As a Reformed Baptist who knows a few things about Reformed Baptist history, let me correct the record for you.

"Reformed Baptist" is an American take on English Particular Baptists. The term took on regular usage about 40 years ago. The designation provides a bit more clarity than Particular Baptist. Particular Baptists got their name because of their belief in definite atonement. The Particular Baptists came on the seen in the late 16th Century. No matter how you slice it that's not yesterday.

As far as your take on Baptist history, well, we'll save that for another thread.

 

Historically Baptists did not subscribe to reformed theology. - end. You just walking up and saying im wrong isnt exactly "convincing me" that the source i cited is just now all of a sudden wrong.

 

I am not a "trail of blood" Landmark Baptist. I do not consider Baptist history to go back to the 1st Century. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. I just set the record straight on the history of Reformed and Particular Baptists. I can provide copious amounts of Baptist history that I am quite sure you will dismiss, so it's really not worth the effort.

 

BTW...your signature is incorrect. FRANCIS said..."preach th gospel ALWAYS, and if necessary, use words."

So for the record, do you now understand & can you now appreciate what the man was trying to convey?:wavey:

 

its the "if necessary use words part" that is silly. See the youtube link.
edit: fixed my signature - thank you for the catch.

Herald:

I am not opposed to learning history, I purchased the Drive by history series from Wretched radio wanting to learn about my church history as I never knew it. After that I was explained baptists have a distinct heritage from protestants, at first I dismissed it, then started doing the research and recently picked up this book which has explained it, I wouldn't say that there were mutliple churches until the time of the reformation, wherein there wasn't just 2 splits but 3 took place, within zwingli's camp there was a separation from those who started doing their own research as well. I have looked at trail of blood - it looked ok but a bit flimsy for me to hang my hat onto at this point. So at this point All I can confidently infer from what ive read is that there was the early church, it began to get corrupted -> luther nailed his 95 thesis, and there was a 3rd split known as the anabaptists, whom historically never agreed with everything that the reformers did. perticular parts of reformed theology included. This is including Election and predestination.

Chapter is titled "Anabaptism and reformed theology" in "The anabaptist story" by William R Estep 3rd edition.

 

I don't know if this has been addressed and, admittedly, I have not read the entirety of this thread. So, forgive me if this is beating the proverbial dead horse.

It is important to note in Baptist history that the Baptist movement did not grow out of the Anabaptists.

The Baptist movement grew out of the English Separatists. And, the Separatists did, by in large, hold to a more reformed theology.

The Archangel

 

I would disagree with you on this point. As would many.

 

It's a common error.

Perhaps it is that the "baptist" moniker is viewed as part of the "anabaptist" label and so a connection is assumed. However, the Baptist movement began out of the English Separatists.

The Archangel

 

But you would be wrong.

Very few historians believe that modern Baptists rose from anabaptists.

Some believe in baptist perpetuity- that there has been an unbroken line of baptistic principles and distinctives held by Christians all the way back to the New Testament.

Even that moderate view is held by a minority of historians today. Spurgeon was a champion of it.

But the scholarship points to baptist origins springing forth from English Separatism.

John Smyth and Thomas Helwys on the Arminian side and John Spilsbury on the Calvinistic side gave us modern Baptists.

You can trace our baptist churches today quite easily to those origins.

And the early baptists spawning from those men rightly condemned anabaptists as heretics.

The Mennonites are the modern descendants of anabaptists- not Baptists.

 

sigh; and now i rally the ball back into your court and say the error is on your part.

so now what are we left with? are you going to play the "im smarter than you card?" :tonofbricks: I disagree with you that Baptists are another movement from the reformation or stemmed from anywhere else other than the Anabaptists, I have linked the text i am reading from many times already. Also as you are aware this is a common view held by many.

You cant just try and bully yourself into being right, im sorry.

we hold different views on the historical past of the Baptists. This doesn't offend me, however just as you believe you are right, I trust the scholars I have looked into.

 

Where in this book that you cite does it say that Anabaptists were the forefathers of modern Baptists?

Can you give a quote from it?

Do you know who John Smyth and John Splisbury were?

Do you know where the the founder of first Baptist church in America came from?

 

Hmmm... now we have the "let me bury my head in the sand" or the "let me plug my ears while singing 'LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA" response.

Having the facts of history is not "bullying." But, of course, I'm a Calvinist and simply could never be right about anything, not even the color of the sky. Next, you'll be insisting that the Revolutionary War was fought against Spain.

One thing you may not be taking into account is the language and thought of the day. To call someone an "Anabaptist" was to say that a person believed in being baptized again (ana, meaning again). These people rejected paedo-baptism and would "baptize again" those who were baptized as infants and were now confessing faith in Christ. So, the term was thrown around and didn't always refer to the religious group.

In fact, according to the article on Wikipedia on the Baptists (which even Wikipedia gets right) five Baptist churches in London cooperated in a condemnation of the Anabaptists (obviously referring to the religious group). That's not the type of thing that happens if the Baptists came out of the Anabaptists.

The earliest Baptists were "General" Baptists (See John Smyth; see Thomas Helwys). They believed in a general atonement (as did the Anabaptists). But, despite their similarities, there isn't a connection between the two groups. By the way, the Calvinist Baptists--the Particular Baptists--came along after the General Baptists did. But, it was from the Separatists. It's a fact of history at this point.

The Archangel

 

Bury my head in the sand? im sorry but what? When did I ever say I wasnt willing to hear your position? you walked up and said "ACTUALLY THIS IS HISTORY" and im just supposed to roll over and believe it? You have provided nothing to substantiate your claims other than your words.

You fail to show me any of these facts Mr. Calvinist. Remember im not elect and probably a lot slower than you. :laugh:

 

What a bunch of bull. What is posted in wiccapedia is not as reliable as you think. It changes it's view quite often. Such is the nature of wicca. A book called the Inquisition would disagree with you. If wicca agrees with you then a Calvinist rewrote it.
MB

 

I only referenced Wikipedia and pointed out that they too have stated the correct evolution of the Baptist movement.

In fact, the book A History of the Baptists by Robert G. Torbet is where I got my information.

And, for the record, "Wicca" and "Wiki" are not the same thing.

The Archangel

 

You are kidding of course. Gee I would not have known with out your expertise. I wonder how you figured that out? Why of course it had to be the spelling:sleep:
MB

 

Archangel, there is at least one thing we DO agree on.

 

Archangel (and others) how does this article do in describing "baptist history"?

http://stevensperay.wordpress.com/the-history-of-the-baptist-churches-in-a-nutshell/

Historical notes only.

I like most things in a "nutshell".