Featured What Doctrines should we separate over?

So, are you in agreement with their tenets as set forth in the essay?:

“Baptist churches are the only true churches in the world.”

“The true church is a local, visible institution.”

“The churches and the kingdom of God are coterminous.”

“There must be no ‘pulpit affiliation’ with non-Baptists.”

“Only a church can do churchly acts.”

“Baptist churches have always existed in every age by an unbroken historical succession.”

 

The scholars I named are not Roman Catholic hacks. Do some investigation before babbling on about things you haven't even examined.

Any reasonable person --and that would exclude you --would certainly acknowledge that the men I named, and many more, were part of the Roman Catholic Church. So the Lord did preserve His own from within that Body and outside of it. Funny how Wycliffe can be viewed positively by you on some occasions and quite negatively at other times.

The point was that many Anabaptists were heretics and murderers. But you like to profess kinship with them anyway.

Try some honesty on for size DHK. Calvin did not behead anyone. You have an agenda. You plow straight ahead regardless if you have to completely falsify history. --Shameful.

"With a click of the mouse" you can come up with some rather dreadful examples from strange cultic sites that pretend to be historical.

My "one-sided view" --that's rich. Look at the Baptist credentials of the scholars I mentioned. Get your head out of the sand DHK.Stay away from your Landmark-tinged sources.

The above is supposed to be funny?!

 

I read no essay, only what Biblicist said and I am in general agreement with that.

Can a person go out and start a Primitive Baptist Church on his own or does he need authority from another PB Church? I know that is not allowed by Old Regular Baptists unless they have changed mightily in recent years.

Now many years ago Eddie West started his own Church in Augusta, Georgia but I think it is gone now. Really don't know.

I believe Baptist Churches are the closest to the Apostolic Churches of any.

It may or not be true. I doubt that any local body in existence has only regenerate members. I do believe in the Universal Church which includes all the redeemed of all time!

After looking the word up O'Reilly I will say this.

Some folks believe the local Church is a visible manifestation of the Kingdom of God.

I believe it is much more than that. Scripture states Jesus Christ died for the Church. I don't recall it saying He died for the Kingdom of God but when we are saved we are translated into the Kingdom of Jesus Christ [God] {Colossians 1:13}. The Church is called the Bride of Jesus Christ, a chaste virgin. The Church, the New Jerusalem, is pictured in the New Heavens and New Earth with the Triune God. That is about as far as I can go but I would appreciate enlightenment.

Who do Primitive Baptists preach with?

???????

I doubt they were called Baptist. Do you believe that God has always had a people on earth?

 

No. The question is almost funny (actually it does make me chuckle), knowing the PBs. Elders would roll over in their graves...

From the article:

" There is no biblical promise of an unbroken, traceable line of succession between New Testament churches.

Neither can the succession premise be proven from history. We can identify groups of “back-to-the-Bible” people throughout church history. We can identify several of the beliefs and practices that we call “Baptist” distinctives among them. But to prove the “unbroken, historical succession” is impossible.

In point of fact, history seems to demonstrate the opposite. We cannot divert this discussion into a study of Baptist history, but it is noteworthy that around the world many Baptists have come into existence as believers read the Word of God and came to Baptist convictions apart from other influences.

We can briefly point to the testimony of the Separate Baptists in the United States. Shubal Stearns and Daniel Marshall were converts under Whitefield’s ministry during the Great Awakening. Though they were brothers-in-law, they came to Baptist convictions independent of each other, through reading the Scriptures. They had a good ministry in Virginia and later removed to North Carolina where a great revival ensued.

Johann Gerhard Oncken was a German who was saved in England. Later, in Hamburg he became convicted of the truth of believer’s baptism. After waiting for someone to immerse him, he, his wife, and five others were baptized by Barnas Sears under cover of darkness. God used him to establish a Baptist testimony in Germany, and he was the driving force of missionary outreach into Russia, Hungary, and several of the Scandinavian countries.

Gustavas Schroeder was a Swedish sea captain who was saved in a Methodist revival meeting in New Orleans. He came to Baptist convictions by reading the Bible and was used of God to plant churches in the United States (including Hamilton Square Baptist Church, San Francisco) and in Scandinavia.

These stories can be repeated countless times. The Landmark Baptists face the horns of a dilemma when deciding if these godly leaders, and others like them, are true Baptists. How does their coming to biblical convictions apart from any influence but Scripture “square” with the Landmark theory of historical succession?"

ALL one hundred fifty something odd kinds of Baptists? All of them?

Well, we are ambassadors for Christ you know. Would it be harebrained to consider the assemblies to be embassies of His kingdom, a kingdom not of this world that can neither be touched with the hand nor seen with the eye?

Too much involved for me to get into right now. Maybe later. I doubt I'm any more enlightened than you.

I'd get in trouble, but I'd let R.C. Sproul preach at my church, wouldn't you?

Yes, including Catholics.

 

I was using an example. You are behaving like the Catholics that I debate with. They use only Catholic sources.
You are the same. You only used "Rippon-approved Baptist" sources. I gave you evidence from Philip Schaff, a well known historian, and you rejected him. If you reject Shaff then who will you accept? You are very biased in your outlook.

Concerning the Anabaptists, try reading J.T. Christian. His "History of the Baptists" can be found on the web.

Wycliffe was not a Catholic. He was one of the greatest enemies the RCC ever had. He preached openly against the RCC, calling the Pope the Antichrist. He had more freedom than most because he was a professor at the university and he was protected by the government. Many of his ideas shaped parliamentary law. He was a was a well respected man as well as a well educated man. His preaching was as anti-Catholic as any person's can get. He called out the institution constantly for their corrupt ways and sought to bring in laws that would limit corruption in the clergy.
He died of a stroke when he was 58.
After his death he was pronounced a heretic by the RCC. His body was exhumed, burned to ashes, and the ashes scattered on River Swift. (Just like any good Catholic, eh??)

You accuse peace loving Christians with murder, but deny the evidence of multiple murders by one who actually did murder. That is hypocrisy. And they talk of the Catholics revising history!

I gave you a quote straight out of Philip Schaff's History (Volume 8). Take it up with him. I am not the one falsifying history. You are the one unwilling to accept it.

And that is what you think of Philip Schaff--thata he is or was a member of a cult? What do you think that tells the rest of us about your view of history?

You need to read Biblicist's assessment of your sources.
BTW, I am not a Landmarkist. Do you even know what one is?

 

DHK

After you are finished peeling off the thin skin layers of your opponent, you might find a Roman Catholic apologist.

 

J.R. Graves denied that anyone needed to show or prove an unbroken, traceable line of succession between New Testament churches. He only stated that scriptures promise that and observable history demonstrates it. In fact, he argued that Nay sayers could not prove an unbroken, traceable line of succession between Genesis 1 and the present of day of human beings back to Adam. However, the scriptures promise they will continue to reproduce after their own kind until Jesus comes again and observable history shows such linkage.

 

I do OR.
And for that reason I often am wrongly labeled a "landmarkist."
I believe in what is called "the spiritual kinship theory," that in every age since the apostles God has preserved a people unto himself that have the same beliefs as Baptists today, though not necessarily called by the same name.
God has never left himself without a witness on this earth.

Having said that let me say how that is different from Landmarkism.
The typical landmarkist believes in apostolic succession, or an unbroken church succession or succession via baptism. Either way it is some kind of physical succession that can be traced.
I am a missionary. Years ago, when I was on deputation trying to raise up some support I phoned the pastor of a church that happened to be KJVO (I didn't know that), and landmarkist (I didn't know that either). He knew what church I came from, and who had baptized me. He said that he could not allow me to preach in his church. The reason he gave was this:
"Because you were not baptized by a Baptist who was baptized by a Baptist by a Baptist."
The link had been broken. The Baptist pastor that had baptized me had come out of a CMA church and his baptism was accepted by other baptists, but not by him. Therefore he would not allow me to preach.

Some of them are Baptist briders. Since only the true churches are Baptist churches, it only makes sense that the Bride of Christ will be composed of Baptists. Christ died for the church (assembly), meaning all the local churches--biblical churches or Baptist churches. Ergo, Baptists make up the bride.

Who was the first Baptist? John the Baptist of course!
We should be able to trace our heritage back to him, never-mind Pentecost.
Almost all of them would practice closed communion.
A good many of them would re-baptize those who would want to join their fellowship unless they came from a like-minded landmarkist church.

I am an IFB, I believe that believers of like faith and order existed in every century. But I am not a Landmarker as described above. I don't believe in a "physical" succession of any kind whether apostolic (Catholic) or by church or baptism.

 

You have no layers --your dishonesty is all-too-apparent. Any other nasty things you want to contribute?

 

You're confused. The Baptists souces I "approve of" are a counterbalance to your skewed Baptist history.

I don't reject PS. I just gave some quotes of his yesterday where he gave John Calvin high praise. Phillip Schaff certainly did not believe in Baptist Successionism. Are you going to reject him? ;-)

Of course he was. Of course he was a dissenting one. He also held to Mariology and puratorty. But still a member of the Body as much as Augustine who went along the same lines. Despite Wycliff's doctinal flaws he was a strong Calvinist.

Were the Munster radicals peaceful? Of course not.

Calvin did not murder once --certainly not mutiple times. You really need to study accurate Church history. After all the false things that you messed up with respect to the lives and doctrines of Westcott,Hort,Erasmus,John Gill,Charles Spurgeon and company -- You best remain quiet until you are better read.

 

So Philip Schaff is just a confused man who has it all wrong.
And that would hold true for many other historians, historical sources as well. Just right them all off as being mad, fictitious writers, wild dreamers, all to protect one of your heroes. Sad!

 

Phillip Schaff lavished praise on John Calvin.

The utter hatred that many have of what they think Calvin was knows no bounds. But the only case in which Calvin is held up to be complict in was the State execution of Michael S. That one singular case in which he had not one vote and everyone on "his team" was against him --the Libertines.

So yes,mad fictious writers,and wild dreamers pretty much sums it up quite nicely. Phillip Schaff certainly didn't lay any murders at Calvin's feet -and no sane historian has either. Get plugged into real Church History DHK --it's shameful for you to be promulgating false,fictious history. Remember your responsibility as a moderator.

 

Why do you ignore my posts. I posted twice from Philip Schaff, TWICE!
Two quotes where he states that Calvin executed people, beheaded them, etc. Why do you ignore those quotes? Go back and read them.

 

Post reported........

 

Evidently, on other planets, this is considered contributing to a conversation.

 

Post reported --the new Hello term on the BB.
But Mike hasn't learned how to get beyond the Hello stage of an honest,civil,reasonable,godly,edifying, conversational interaction.

 

Hey, post reported. How've you been?

Yeah, he's kind of like the Frank Burns of BaptistBoard.

Hey, Post Reporting Day is coming up. Are you done with your shopping yet.

I was in the store the other day and the girl at the check out said, "Happy Holidays". I said, "NO! not 'Happy Holidays'. Happy Post Reporting Day!"

The war on Post Reporting Day is really starting to tick me off. First, they took SaturnNeptune out of the schools. Now, they're trying to marginalize us because we honor him on Post Reporting Day.

Happy Post Reporting Day.

 

Protestant historians have an interest in supporting the Roman Catholic view of church history because they trace themselves and their ordinances through Rome.

There is a more critical view of church history that even some Protestants admit is legitimate and it has supporters who have tremendous historical creditials.

The issue comes down to three very simple points of disagreement.

1. When accusing the free church movements of heresies, are the charges formed and worded according to how Rome and the Protestants viewed orthodoxy and thus the charges that claim such free church movements did not believe in or practice the ordinances, or have a ministry or were Manicheans, is it because they simply denied and repudiated the Catholic and Protestant interpretation of such things??

2. Did the inquisitors and historic apologists of Rome intentionally distort the true beleifs of the free church movement in order to bring them under the laws of Justinian and Theodosius to legally condemn and persecute them?

3. Did these free church movements confess perpetuity from the apostles and did their persecutors admit to their antiquity.

There are many historians who affirm all three and provide evidence to support all three, while Romanist historians and those who follow them deny such charges.

 

Post reported, Biblicist. Now, when you say "Roman Catholic view of Church history", forgive me if I'm a little slow, but that sounds a little vague to me. Would you mind elaborating?

 

Schaff makes one statement that explains much of the history of Roman Catholicism and its subsequent persecution, even slaughter, of those that rejected the doctrine and domination of the Roman Bishop. Little wonder that the history of dissent is muffled!

Schaff tells us [Volume 2, page 73]: With Constantine, therefore, the last of the heathen, the first of the Christian, emperors, a new period begins. The church ascends the throne of the Caesars under the banner of the once despised, now honored and triumphant cross, and gives new vigor and lustre to the hoary empire of Rome.