Featured Baptists are not Reformed

OR, I didn't know you were a Landmarkist!

 

...and what Spurgeon said may be all well and good and true (somewhat), but Landmarkism ultimately leads to the same exact attitude of the Jews of Christ's day, "think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father", and forgets that, "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham".

My experience with Landmarkism has not been good. Some, or most, of it's claims may be true, but the attitude I have found that it ultimately produces is NOT at all well and good, it's just as repugnant as those Sadducees and Pharisees of Christ's day.

 

OR,

Is there any evidence of such churches existing simultaneous to the RC church, is Mr. Spurgeon speaking of some ethereal "spirit" of Baptists existing in the earliest days?

 

The Didache, the earliest known manual of church practices (dating to the late 1st or very early 2nd century), recommends pouring only if no 'living water' is available. This document does seem to reinforce the belief that immersion was the standard and preferred mode of baptism in the early church.

Yes, Baptists were 'reformers before Luther or Calvin were born' in that there have always been groups of believers hearkening back to primitive practices - and being roundly persecuted for doing so. But let us not forget that Pope Charlie was also a staunch and avowed self-described Calvinist, and for him - or anyone else - to suggest that the Reformation had no influence on his doctrine is asinine.

 

Probably no hard evidence. However, Christ promised the NT local church would be preserved, His church. Since the RCC is the main church during that era 500-1500, commons sense says the RCC was not the choice of Christ to preserve the church. Therefore, some group or system of worship had to be in place to preserve the church. I believe they pretty much believed what most Baptists do today.

 

'Hassel's History' is a favorite of mine (my copy is highlighted from cover to cover) and is undoubtedly the reason I would agree with much of what the Landmarkists claim, but, paradoxically, I don't perceive the 'Landmarkist attitude' from either father or son (joint authors) from the book, they are very tolerant and objective with many other's views and delve more so into the truths others presented than their errors. This is typical of mainstream Primitive Baptist theology which is fairly well presented in the book.

 

I disagree. The theological heritage of Baptists notes that since their rise in the 1600s out of English Separatism with influences from Anabaptism, there has always been a tension between reformed and non-reformed camps.

In particular, the debate between the General Baptists and Particular Baptists is an early example.

Who himself was a Calvinist.

 

The "Roman" Catholic Church did not exist until after Pope Gregory the Great and wasn't distinguished from the East until after the Great Schism in 1040.

That said, the earliest churches (and Christian communities) were diverse and a loose confederation of aligned sectors throughout the world. Since no Christian structures existed (widely) until after AD 300, the idea that there was a highly structured and hierarchal church in the west and east is not supportable. Additionally, until Nicaea in AD 325 there was no established liturgy, recognized clergy, or institutional supports in Christendom. Multiple "denominations" existed but loosely so.

 

Neither do I, but now someone will claim they do. :BangHead:

 

We should ask the Biblicists, oh wait!?!

 

That makes no make sense. Spurgeon called himself a Calvinist. It did not mean that he agreed with every particular of John Calvin's doctrines.

Here are some C.H.S. quotes:

"It would not be possible for me too earnestly to press upon you the importance of reading the expositions of that prince among men,John Calvin."

"That old truth that Calvin preached,that Augustine preached,is the truth that I must preach today,or else be false to my conscience and my God."

"Calvin is the grandest expositor ever."

"Calvin knew more about the gospel than almost any uninspired man who ever lived."

 

Among many so-called nondenominational churches which are essentially Baptist (without having Baptist in their name) the errors of Roman Catholicism are not present.

Within the wide and diverse world of Baptist churches there are a host of unorthodox teachings. Baptists don't need to pat themselves on the back --there is more than enough error within them.

 

The General Baptist Declaration of Faith (1660) was "set forth by many of us,who are (falsely) called Ana-Baptists."

In the Preface to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677) it wa acknowledged that the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Savoy Declaration were sound and their was no desire to separate on the grand principles which united them all.

"And this we did,the more abundantly to manifest our consent with both,in all the fundamental articles of the Christian religion,as also with many others whose orthodox confessions have been published to the world,on behalf of the Protestants in diverse nations and cities...our hearty agreement with them,in the wholesome Protestant doctrine,which,with so clear evidence of Scriptures they have asserted."

These Baptists were not afraid to identify themselves with Protestantism.

I know there is a linkage that modern-day Baptists have with the early Anabaptists. But many of the latter were in deep error. And these days how many of us have any connection with the Amish,Hutterites and Mennonites doctrinally? I think mainly Arminians want to establish a greater bond between modern day Baptists and the early Anabaptists.