Featured Begining of Baptists

The challenge of old history is that it doesn't have the best, most recent information. There's a reason too many baptists believed the Trail of Blood business, not only was it that they weren't always the best scholars but they had limited information about the nature of historical groups in Christianity.

Having better data and archeological evidences allows us frame a better picture of the historical context between Pentecost and the Reformation.

The Trail of Blood has no historical bearing for all the reasons I listed above. With better historical information we've tested the theory and discarded it as an old wives' tale...which it is.

 

Again, you have not dealt with evidence, evidence that you completely ignore. I can make a case from the Talmud that Jesus was just a man and not deity. That doesn't make it right. I would be ignoring evidence just like you are. I could make a thread on "lies about Jesus refuted," just like you did. That is easy to do. The Talmud makes many of them. No problem.
Your failure is to deal with evidence.
I quoted from Schaff. Would you like me to also quote from J.T. Christian who also quotes from primary sources? They all say the same thing. Paedobaptists like Calvin and other Reformers persecuted Baptists. This is a well established fact.

Most left the Catholic Church. Some who lived in remote areas stayed in the Catholic Church and protested while in it. They were saved in spite of it, not because of it. That is the obvious that you deny.

And hundreds were persecuted by him. Good is not erased by evil.
It is not me who is being juvenile. You can't erase history simply because of your blinded loyalty to one man.

 

This is how Spurgeon saw Baptists!

Well said preacher!:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

In colonial Virginia Baptists were allowed to meet only once each month by the C of E. This is a custom still followed by Old Regular Baptists.

 

Does the following make sense? It seems to be a contradiction to me. How is recent information old history?

 

Though I admire Spurgeon immensely,I can point to some of his flaws theologically and historically. He was wrong here as he was wrong in his sermon on 1 Timothy 2. He was wrong when he said that he preferred the latter Calvin to the young one who wrote The Institutes. Calvin first published the Institutes in 1536. His last update was in 1559. Spurgeon had thinks skewed there. Spurgeon was mistaken at times. He was allowed.

 

Well thank God we can still express our opinion whether we are correct or not. Taking advantage of that freedom I see that your spelling is only slightly better than mine and yeshua1.

 

Rippon was wrong about those fellows. But here is a sample from Armitage in his "History of the Baptists" when he references the Waldensians:

"If they opposed infant baptism it is unaccountable that their literature, running through four centuries, gives no formal argument against, and no accompanying demand for the baptism of believers only." (p.302)

I highly doubt that. But I will research it.

 

One of the fundamental queries of scholars is to ensure the best sources and the best history is understood and presented. Too often, older scholarship neglects being able to leverage recent finds and discussions.

For instance, Spurgeon might have been the best preacher of his day but his comments on the origin of Baptists have no bearing on contemporary Baptist history discussions other than a footnote of a view of historical persons. Why? Because Spurgeon doesn't benefit from recent discoveries and the best contemporary scholarship because he cannot.

Older scholarship, particularly that of the 19th century and prior, lacks several key matters:
1. A critical method for inquiry that was developed in the early parts of the 20th century.
2. Significant horizons due to unacknowledged predilections and intellectual horizons.
3. Any contact with major archeological discoveries and their resulting critical inquiry.
4. Major historical views that have developed after their time and are better views because of their benefitting from the above three points.

Older scholarship isn't bad scholarship, it just isn't the best.

We need the best. Too often evangelicals, and fundamentalists, have settled for mediocre scholarship that satisfies their own presuppositions and we have been wrong because of it. The referenced piece from Spurgeon suffers because of the above counts and also that he wasn't a scholar. That isn't to say that Spurgeon isn't useful, edifying, or even biblically accurate. It is to say that he lacks sufficient training to make such sweeping claims.

So in the end, we need to be able to leverage the best tools and the best history to make our scholarship better. It will make us better as a result.

 

I disagree. Here are some reasons why:
First, read again the quote by Spurgeon:

He is not citing sources. He is stating his position. This is his stance, his position on Baptist history, very concisely stated. There are no inaccuracies, no false statements, no untruths, etc. He has stated a position, one to which many here ascribe, including myself.

Now that the position is stated it becomes the duty of Spurgeon (were he alive), or any other that agrees with him, to back up the position with historical fact. I am sure that Spurgeon would have been just as capable of doing that then, as many are today, in spite of so-called recently discovered historical finds. They were not ignorant men. They were very studied individuals and in many cases had more resources than we do. I find myself constantly quoting books where the citation states (1892, reprint), for example.

The newer books are often tainted with a more modern view to history. Spurgeon has stated his premise and will view history through that premise.
More modern historians will disregard Spurgeon's premise and will flatly affirm, inspite of all evidence that Baptists started in England around the time of the Reformation, or with Roger Williams. To say that Baptists existed in every century since the apostles, to the modern historian, is just a silly idea, a fantasy--and so Spurgeon is a write-off as far as history is concerned.

Modern scholarship isn't everything. It is "modern scholarship" that disproves the deity of Christ. They "know" better than to believe in that myth. It is the "scientific method" that disproves that Daniel and his three Hebrew friends couldn't do such things as walk in the fire heated seven times hotter, or be locked in a den of lions. And Peter walk on water?? You really believe that? Modern scholarship doesn't.
Modern scholarship isn't everything.

 

Modern scholarship is not one monolithic entity. You lump all contemporary scholarship under a single umbrella and make your uneducated edicts --like a Baptist pope.

All modern books on Baptist history are not authored by those denying the fundamentals of the faith. I would venture to say that most writing on the subject are solid Christians ...and (psst) Baptists!

 

I am sure all would benefit from reference to these recent discoveries.

Now what was that modern method of Biblical Interpretation that was developed in Germany during the 19th Century? Just what has it accomplished in furthering the Kingdom of God? Do I hear NOTHING?

Now I am confused!:laugh:

This is a new one. Archeological discoveries determine the Biblical faith of those who dissented from Rome? Perhaps it was the discovery of mass graves of the dissenters, named as heretics by Rome?

That is strictly an assumption.

Again that is an assumption!

So are we to assume that evangelicals and fundamentalists are further from Biblical truth than say, the Roman Catholics, the Episcopalians, the Orthodox Communions?

Perhaps Spurgeon's problem was that he was a scholar of the Bible?

The best tools, the best history, the best scholarship really have nothing to do with making us better. If they have any affect at all it is to make us worse. I do not believe any reasonable person could argue that the state of Christianity has improved in the 70 years since WWII as a result of your assertion. In fact Christianity is essentially dead in Western Europe and Britain and is headed that way in Canada and the United States. There is some evidence of the spread of evangelical Christianity in South America, primarily some of the Pentecostal groups. I could list a number of evils that have crept into the so-called mainline denominations in this age of improved scholarship: the widespread endorsement of abortion and homosexuality just to name two!

 

I like Spurgeon's comments and agree with Spurgeon's comments so I thought I would repeat them again.

There is a mistaken and widespread view that the intellect of 20th century man is superior to that of 19th century man and 18th century man and so on. That is simply fallacious. If I am not mistaken John Gill who was self taught is recognized as an eminent Hebrew scholar.

Some of the scientific discoveries of the 18th and 19th centuries are outstanding and provide the basis of modern science and medicine. Any scientist worth his salt today would admit that he stands on the shoulders of GIANTS. It is doubtful that the genius of Leonardo de Vinci will ever be exceeded.

Thanks much. I could not agree more!

I have mentioned this before but it is appropriate here. Some years ago I bought a book by a noted theologian Studies in Dogmatics, Holy Scripture. I read a chapter or so. i am not really sure may not have got past Chapter 1. Something wasn't right. I could not understand what the writer was trying to communicate. It was like trying to understand the following statement:

Finally I gave up. Some years later I read that the author did not believe in the inherency of Holy Scripture so it was not Holy Scripture to him. Then I understood!

 

We're no longer in the 20th century OR. Time has passed you by! ;-)

It's not a matter of intellect --but greater knowledge.

What is inherency?

Who was the author of the book you cited?

 

:thumbs::applause:

 

What's amazing is Philip Schaff wrote in the 19th century, yet no one say his history is outdated due to "better data and archeological evidences." In many ways his works remain the standard with regard to church history. But somehow the same doesn't apply to Baptist historians.

It has been claimed that the Baptist historians of the 1600's - the early 1900's "weren't always the best scholars (because) they had limited information." Nothing could be further from the truth! Consider:

1. John T. Christian has the largest Baptist history library in the world when he died. He made multiple trips to Europe doing research. The library in New Orleans Baptist Seminary (where he taught Baptist history) is named after in his honor.

2. Spurgeon was so impressed with the scholarship of Canadian Baptist J.M. Cramp's "Baptist History" that he promoted in the Sword and Trowel and used it in his Bible College.

3. Men like Henry D'Anvers and G.H. Orchard had access to the best libraries in England when they wrote their Baptist histories.

4. Read works like William Jones' "Church History" or Robert Robinson's "History of Baptism." They left no stone unturned in their research.

Many, many more examples could be given.

Lastly where is the "better historical information (where) we've tested the theory and discarded it as an old wives' tale."

Where is this better historical information? Please tell us. What books can we read to find to? I have been looking for years and I have not yet found it.

 

We really need a "Like" button around here! :thumbsup:

 

Sometimes the spell checker has a mind?? of its own. I assume given your posts you are aware of that.

I don't want to be accused of defamation of character, saying someone does not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, but you can find out from the title.

 

We really do need a like button! Administrator please note.

Some years ago the pastor of the Church I attended said: "Baptists have become respectable." My thought at that time was: "That is the worst thing you can say about Baptists".

Baptists are still considered by some, including some on this Forum sad to say, as being functionally illiterate. Perhaps that still speaks well of Baptists. The Apostle Paul, perhaps the theological giant amongst the Apostles wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit:


1 Corinthians 1:18 -2:2
18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.
30. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:
31. That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

1. And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.