Featured Begining of Baptists

I am not confused. You refuse to consider the evidence.
It is here; posted here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2089741&postcount=85

Calvin, when he set up his own state-church government was a law unto himself. He was the law--judge, jury and executioner. He was it. Shaff records how Calvin himself imposed the sentence:

His state-church; his laws.

It must be put in perspective. Today that is child abuse and murder. And I would judge it as such.

We give Mohammed the same type of harsh judgement--a pedophile and a rapist. We do so because he committed such acts like taking Aisha, to be his wife, a nine year old girl. But it wasn't illegal then for him to do so, just repugnant according to our societal norms and laws.
And the same goes for Calvin. He was a law unto himself.

 

I consider Baptists to be "Biblical Christianity." If they only existed from the Reformation onward who existed before the Reformation? The RCC? The Catholic Church has never been the vehicle of truth, the vessel of the gospel, the vassal of the Word. It is religious, but wrong.
If there was no "Biblical Christianity" (Baptist-like faith) before the Reformation, the Muslim apologist would immediately grab that "fact" and declare that Islam existed before Christianity. Catholicism "is a form of godliness but denies the power thereof." It is not Christianity.

What then happened to Christianity for over 1500 years??

 

Here's a link to many of the quotes I referred to:

http://particularbaptistlibrary.org...ritical Lectures on Baptist Succession(p).pdf

Some Critical Lectures on Baptist Successionism by R.E. Pound

Ron Pound has served as a Baptist pastor, author, editor, and professor. He has read virtually every book on Baptist history from the 1600's through the 1800's. This book is very readable and is full of primary sources. I hope you will check it out!

 

Praise The Lord, the witnesses and their testimonies survive the gates of hades--as promised.

Thanks for the information--an outstanding gleaning of True Church History--in less than a hundred pages.

Where are these witnesses in the U.S. of A.?

Ecumenism is rampant.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

It's really very simple: Baptists/re-baptizers have been around since, at least, the second century and predate the reformation by several centuries. Baptists are not Protestants. Protestants and Catholics alike persecuted "re-baptizers" as heretics, the Catholics before there was a "Reformation."

 

Mr. Pound's essay is bogus. He writes in the style of Herbert W. Armstrong. You know,with all the emboldened print and grand pronouncements.

His "work" is not very scholarly. There were many grammatical errors and typos. He had 'effected' instead of affected. He had 'Wish History' and meant Welsh History. He said 'then the' when 'than the' would have been correct.

He appropriated Charles Spurgeon's term of Downgrade and misapplied it to anyone who doesn't go along with his Baptist Successionism view. To use the term and apply it the way he did is simply in bad taste.

Pound believes that Baptist historians who are not of his party are downgraders. He says they are characterized by anti-Trinitarianism, anti-particular redemption, anti-human depravity and anti-inspiration of the biblical autographs. Nonsense. Of course some Baptist historians do not have Calvinistic proclivities. But to assign them with anti-Christian doctrine is disgraceful.

He says modern Bible versions use anti-Trinitarian texts.

He dismisses "modern Baptists" as being "mostly reprobates."

He maintains that Baptists who do not believe in the Divine origin and succession of Baptists are akin to the German higher critics of the 19th century and following.

He denounces those who believe in the Church Universal and calls the concept "a doctrine of devils."

In short his work is filled with "lies,slanders and historical misstatements" to use his own words against his rivals.

If you are searching for a reasonable treatment of the subject -- Mr. Pound is certainly not your man. He lives up to his name. He certainly does pound away at his foes. But his venom is not Christ-like.

 

Sometimes we get venom and antidote confused.

Grammatical errors are kind of irrelevant( or is it irelevant?) My computer corrects my grammar automatically. Do we understand what irrelevant and irelevant might mean?

Some would say Pound's work is an accurate expose' of modern and ancient nominal Christendom.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

Many others would say that his work is riddled with slanderous lies and hatred which disqualifies him from a Christian ministry.

 

LOL.....So you are in effect pounding him for his errors in grammar. Indeed, how can anyone mess up "Welsh History?" Cretan!!!! :laugh:

 

Why are you so comfortable in stating such grossly false things such as the above?

Calvin did not set up "his own state-church government" in Geneva. He had no civil authority. He held no such office. He couldn't have anyone arrested,tortured or executed. Please be honest. You and a now-banned poster seem to be on the same page with respect to stating absolutely false things about the Genevan Reformer.
_____________________________________________________________

Your tendency to bring up Calvin out of the blue is problematic. Start your own thread on the subject. It has nothing to do with the OP.

 

I'm curious how biblical Christianity existed before the Bible.

Don't get me wrong, I have deep reverence for the inscripturated words of God. The Bible is inspired and authoritative.

But what about the space between Jesus' ministry and the time when the Church formally recognizes the Canon of Scripture? Does "biblical Christianity" exist in a time when believers can't even agree on what is the Bible?

Now, I do believe that the Canon of 66 books, that is the Bible, was informally consisted by the beginning of the 3rd century. Personally, there is simply no way to date the Muratorian fragment prior to AD 200. So there is a loose Canonical structure in place, but even then there are some extra books included and some current biblical books that aren't included.

Since the Roman Catholic Church was not instantiated formally until about AD 650, you've got quite a bit of time where the earliest churches were doing just fine accomplishing ministry and proclaiming the Gospel. Indeed, even until about 300 you have baptism by immersion as the primary means of baptism in most churches.

The entire JJJ-Organic Successionist, Trail of Blood stuff makes little sense to me for a number of reasons:
1. It seems to forget that the RCC didn't come around until 650, and it didn't start getting bad until about 900.
2. It neglects, because it must, to reconcile the most recent historical and archeological data
3. When Carroll originally put his text together some of these groups were barely known, and now most of the middle ages groups are known to to be heretical.
4. It suggests that just because the predominate form of western Christianity was the RCC, that means all of Christianity was the RCC...it simply wasn't.
5. In reality even Roman Catholicism in the Middle Ages was diverse and had faithful groups within its ranks.
6. The whole notion that the faith hasn't been faithfully carried is erroneous when compared to the actual historical data.

So in the end we have a movement that is more about disagreeing with Roman Catholicism than it is about providing anything helpfully historically.

Baptists couldn't have existed in the Middle Ages. They simply couldn't have existed. The components of Christianity are too strict and the practice too focused to allow for such a group.

In fact, since most reasonable scholars posit either Anabaptist or English Separatist roots, the Trail of Blood business has been quashed and is without merit in even the most conservative and respectable corners.

So what did biblical Christianity look like before the Bible?

Frankly, what did biblical Christianity look like before Luther?

 

And this is a good example of both, why old history isn't the best history and why we shouldn't read Schaff too much.

Calvin wasn't the "judge, jury, and executioner" in Geneva. Look at some good, recent scholarship (done by evangelicals and conservatives if you must) and see that the Counciliar movement in Geneva was sparked by Calvin and he had, by the middle point of his work there, transferred power into the Council and submitted himself to them.

New history, critical history is better because it is...quite often...correct. Schaff was good in his day. Heck, I've got his history on the shelf in front of me and I think it is a nice work from long ago. But history has gotten better. We can do better.

 

Just reading every book on Baptist history from a period does not make someone either a scholar nor an expert. Frankly, from reading Pound he clearly isn't either.

 

Duh.

I am against all persecution. Do you consider the Anabaptists true Baptists? How much doctrine do you jointly hold with them?

Please inform me how Calvin persecuted "true Baptists."

Many Reformed who practice "infant baptism" do not believe in baptismal regeneration --Calvin certainly did not.

The latter is where most originated from. The early Baptists of England came from the Church of England --the Puritan wing. Then they moved to a Dissenter-type of church. As they examined Scripture more thoroughly in their Separatist views they became true Baptists.

 

How perceptive of you to miss 95 % of the content of my post.

 

Very good on deniability; very poor on responding to actual evidence.

In relation to the OP, most Reformers were persecutors of the Baptists. The Baptists stood in the way of the Paedobaptists, and were hated by them.
What was Calvin's position on Baptism?

http://www.reformedtheology.ca/baptism.html

It really didn't vary much from the RCC, from whence Calvin came.
Throughout the centuries, from the Apostles onward, God has always had his own, and it hasn't been the RCC. Nor has it come through Calvin or the Reformation.

 

It's hard to say that Calvin didn't advocate for peso-baptism when it is so clearly presented in his works. DHK has some good citations.

 

I have submitted a lot of solid evidence that is presented on my thread on "Lies About John Calvin Refuted." You made completely false charges and you know it. To continue in your mendacity is not becoming of a Christian.

And you KNOW that many saints of the Lord have been from the RCC. We've been around this before. The Venerable Bede, Bradwardine, Wycliff, Huss, Jerome of Prague and many more were of the RCC. To deny the obvious is very immature of you DHK.

Millions, quite possibly, have either been led to the Lord or brought into a deeper knowledge of the Lord and His Word through the writings of Calvin and the Reformers. Many of His own have been within the ranks of Calvinists. Again,to deny the obvious is juvenile on your part.

 

You all missed the point of Pound's book. I posted it for the primary sources he gives. Rippon claimed that early Baptist historians like Thomas Armitage, David Benedict, Joseph Ivimey, and William Cathcart believed the Baptists originated in the 1600's out of the English Separatists. This is dead wrong and Pound gives the primary sources to prove it. Virtually all Baptist historians before 1892 (whether in the south, north or in England) believed in Baptist perpetuity.

Go back and read Lecture III "What Have the Old Baptists Believed About Their Succession." Especially pages 43-53.

http://particularbaptistlibrary.org...ritical Lectures on Baptist Succession(p).pdf

 

Another good read: The Trilemma, by J.R. Graves, 1881.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James