Baptists: When did your denomination decide the canon?

[Squire Robertsson]

As I read the history of that period, it seems like the only thing the Lutherans, Reformed, the CoE, and RCC could agree on was (Ana)Baptists were treasonous heretics who desereved to die.

Not by Baptists But we've been here before.

 

[Walter]

Not by Baptists But we've been here before.

Baptists have had a 'dark history' though, wouldn't you say, Martin?
Southern Baptist Seminary Confronts History Of Slaveholding And 'Deep Racism'

 

[Jerome]

"Puritan liberty of conscience meant, 'The right and liberty to think as they did, but no toleration to those who differed.' The Puritans of New England as soon as ever a Baptist made his appearance among them, persecuted him....No sooner was there a Baptist, than he was hunted up, and brought before his own Christian brethren! Mark you, he was brought up for fine, for imprisonment,confiscation, and banishment" —Charles Spurgeon, "Fire! Fire! Fire!"


Louis Taylor Merrill, ASR 10, No. 6, Dec. 1945. pp. 768-769:

"A sample of Quaker punishment is recorded in the case of William Brend. After being subjected to a severe lashing, he was put "into irons, neck and heels, and locked so close together that there was no more room between each than for the horse-lock which fastened them on," in which condition he was left without food for sixteen hours. Next day he was whipped again, 117 lashes, with a tarred rope until, according to a contemporary chronicler, "his flesh was beaten black and as into a jelly."' Almost equally harsh was the treatment of Baptists, for whom banishment was prescribed by law of 1644 unless they should refrain from their opposition to infant baptism. (Rough phases of Baptist persecutions, specially in the whippings and prison experiences of William Witter and Obadiah Holmes, are recounted in John Clark's Ill Newes from New England). . . .Though no more Quakers were hanged after 1661, for some years thereafter members of the sect were fined, imprisoned and whipped. . . .Floggings, earcroppings, and tongue-borings with a hot iron were prescribed"

 

[Jerome]

we've been here before.

Indeed: early English Baptist Benjamin Keach was sent to the pillory in the 1600s. Why?:

From the trial record...

"Clerk reads [Keach's words]...'it is the Day that they have long'd for: then they shall hear that Sentence, Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you: And so shall they reign with Christ on the Earth a thousand Years, &c.'

Judge: This is contrary to the Creed in the Book of Common-Prayer, and is an old Heresy, which was cast out of the Church a thousand Years ago, and was likewise condemned by the Council of Constance about five hundred Years ago, and hath lain dead ever since, till now this Rascal hath revived it.

....

Clerk: :...thou hast affirmed thus, concerning the second Person in the Blessed Trinity, in these plain English words: "I also believe that he rose again the third Day from the Dead, and ascended into Heaven, and there now sitteth at the right hand of God the Father; and from thence he shall come again at the appointed time of the Father, to reign personally upon the Earth, and to be the Judge of the Quick and the Dead."

Judge: This is contrary to our Creed: for whereas he saith, "From thence he shall come again at the appointed time of the Father, to reign personally upon the Earth, and to be Judge both of the Quick and the Dead," our Creed only saith, "From thence he shall come to judge both the Quick and the Dead."

....

Judge: Benjamin Keach, you are here convicted of writing and publishing a seditious and scandalous Book, for which the Court's Judgment is this, and the Court doth award, That you shall go to Gaol for a Fortnight, without Bail or Manprise; and the next Saturday to stand upon the Pillory at Ailsbury for the space of two Hours, from Eleven of the clock to One, with a Paper upon your head with this Inscription, "For writing, printing, and publishing a schismatical Book, intitled, The Child's Instructor, or a New and Early Primmer." And the next Thursday to stand in the same manner, and for the same time, in the Market of Winslow; and there your Book shall be openly burnt before your Face by the common Hangman, in disgrace of you and your Doctrine. And you shall forfeit to the King's Majesty the sum of 20 l. and shall remain in Gaol until you find sureties for your good Behavior and Appearance at the next Assizes, there to renounce your Doctrine, and make such publick submission as shall be injoined you. Take him away, Keeper.

Keach: I hope I shall never renounce those Truths which I have written in that Book."



from A Complete Collection of State-Trials, and Proceedings upon High-Treason, and other Crimes and Misdemeanors

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Baptists have had a 'dark history' though, wouldn't you say, Martin?
Southern Baptist Seminary Confronts History Of Slaveholding And 'Deep Racism'

I think that is a particularly American shame and by no means confined to the Baptists..
Have a read of this: William Knibb, 1803-1845, Jamaican missionary and slaves' friend

 

[Yeshua1]

From what I understand, Bibles used by various protestants in the late 1880s had more than 66 books. So, when did your denomination decide how many books are in the Bible which was given to us by God?

That was decided by the early church, as the 66 canonized books were pretty much accepted and in use early on!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Walter, again you're conflating the SBC with Baptists in general. Remember the Northern Baptists split from the Triennial Baptist Convention because they refused to support slaveholding home missionaries. This was back when Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas were the frontier.

Baptists have had a 'dark history' though, wouldn't you say, Martin?

 

[Walter]

Walter, again you're conflating the SBC with Baptists in general. Remember the Northern Baptists split from the Triennial Baptist Convention because they refused to support slaveholding home missionaries. This was back when Missouri, Arkansas, and Texas were the frontier.

Good.point!

 

[Salty]

Walter, if I read it correctly -
you stated you used to be a Baptist.
What "brand" of Baptist were you (indep, SBC, ABC, ect?)

If so, why did you switch over?

 

[Walter]

Walter, if I read it correctly -
you stated you used to be a Baptist.
What "brand" of Baptist were you (indep, SBC, ABC, ect?)

If so, why did you switch over?

i grew up in a loosely associated ABC church. While I was a student at Cal Baptist University, I attended an SBC church close to school. After graduating I became a member of a CBA affiliated church. Years ago I began following the threads on this board in which Carson Weber contributed. I found his debates with DHK fascinating. I was already questioning doctrines I was taught as a youngster. I began studying evangelical and Catholic apologetics and comparing them to how the Early Church interpreted scripture.

I have posted my testimony of my journey to becoming a Catholic on a previous thread. I made my decision after much study and prayer. A close Coptic Christian friend shared the history and witness of his faith tradition which further reinforced my realizing the Christian Church emerging from the Apostolic times looked nothing like the Baptist churches I had grown up within. I deeply appreciate the Baptists who presented Christ to me and consequently I repented of my sins and put my trust in Him and His shed blood. My faith and trust in Christ has only increased over the years since I embraced the Apostolic faith of the Catholic Church. Btw, I have life long Baptist prayer partnerships that are VERY dear to me!

Anyway, thanks for asking!

 

[Walter]

Btw, I didn't join the BB until well after the 'purge' of Catholics and was.still a Baptist when I joined. Other Baptists on this board like Thinkingstuff (now Catholic)/and Zenas had a lot of contributions.that kept me studying.

 

[Salty]

Btw, I didn't join the BB until well after the 'poet's of Catholics and was.still a Baptist when I joined. Other Baptists on this board like Thinkingstuff (now Catholic)/and Zenas had a lot of contributions.that kept me studying.

Wow - quite a journey.

Thanks for the info.

 

[NoWelch'sPlease]

you do realize that Baptists are not Protestants!

If they protest the Catholic Church, they are Protestant. Even those who attend "Non-Denominational" churches are Protestant, although they do not call themselves that.

 

[Salty]

If they protest the Catholic Church, they are Protestant. Even those who attend "Non-Denominational" churches are Protestant, although they do not call themselves that.

Not exactly - by protesting - they LEFT the Roman Catholic Church.
The question is - were Baptists ever part of the RCC?

 

[canadyjd]

Not exactly - by protesting - they LEFT the Roman Catholic Church.
The question is - were Baptists ever part of the RCC?

Baptists were, it seems, the product of the reformation (Catholics like Luther and Calvin who desired reform within the church) don't you think

 

[NoWelch'sPlease]

The Baptists completed the Reformation by casting out the last remnant of Romanism, infant baptism.

What about self-baptism, which is what I understand John Smyth had the audacity to try to do. Is it an invention still around today?

 

[NoWelch'sPlease]

were Baptists ever part of the RCC?

John Smyth had been Anglican from what I understand.

 

[Walter]

John Smyth had been Anglican from what I understand.

just a side-note, there are more and more Anglicans/Episcopalians entering the Catholic Church by way of the Ordinariate and have much of the rich Anglican liturgy/music retained. I attended a packed church (Our Lady of the Atonement) in San Antonio celebrating what I would describe as a 'nose-bleed High Mass' that brought tears to my eyes! People who had fled the liberal Episcopal church heresies and new converts to Christ made up the majority of the parish. Not many cradle Catholics.

 

[37818]

The 66 books of our Bible were Holy Scripture when they where authored originally, not when some group or groups decied they were "canon." The other books which were not included today actually were never Holy Scripture regardless of the fact that some had held them to be so.

 

[NoWelch'sPlease]

The 66 books of our Bible were Holy Scripture when they where authored originally, not when some group or groups decied they were "canon." The other books which were not included today actually were never Holy Scripture regardless of the fact that some had held them to be so.

So, the innovation afforded by Martin Luther, which excluded certain books, (he had also wanted to exclude James and Revelation, among others) has nothing to do with which Bible Baptists use today?

The canon was identified these times around the fourth century: the Synod of Rome, 382, the Council of Hippo, 393, the Council of Carthage, 397, a letter from Pope Innocent I to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse, 405, and the Second Council of Carthage, 419. It is the same Bible Catholics use today.

In fact, for 1100 years, until Luther came along, Christians used this Bible.

I thought nothing could be added to or taken away from the Bible?