Different Kinds of Baptist

I would agree with Rev. Joshua. Here is a good series for those interested:

http://www.emmanuel-baptist.org/sermons/History/

 

The Trail of Blood is an excellent resource. I always keep dozens of copies on hand for distribution. Several local church printing ministries are printing these by the thousands. As a former Catholic it was a real eye opener. This booklet was very instrumental in leading my unsaved brother to the Lord. I wonder what you think of books like Foxes Book of Martyrs and Martyr's Mirror? How about the Martyr accounts in the Bible? If you are going to refute the accuracy of The Trail of Blood here in this forum, don't you think you ought to quote your source? Was it one of your Cemetary/Seminary "Professors"? I whole heartedly agree with the brother who stated that a Baptist is not a "Protestant". If you consider yourself a "Protestant" then please drop the name Baptist. If those who constantly refute "Baptist Distinctives" would only drop our name it sure would be easier for everyone involved. Talk about the epitome of "Stand for nothing and fall for anything!" What think ye brethren....?

 

DB, every mainstream Church Historian - baptist or otherwise - realizes that the Trail of Blood is revisionist propoganda. Glenn Hinson, William Estep, Buddy Shurden, and Leon McBeth all come to mind as contemporary examples of widely published and respected baptist Church Historians who give no credibility to the Trail of Blood.

Joshua

 

And I could make a much longer list of mainstream church historians who would accept the basic premise of "The Trail of Blood," IE, of the perpetuity of "the faith once delivered to the saints" as being accurate.

The question is, "Did your system of faith originate in the Protestant Reformation" or is your faith "the faith once delivered to the saints?" If the latter, did it die out during the dark ages and have to be "reformed" and "reinvented" or did it always exist in the nooks and crannies of Europe and western Asia, and was no small influence on the reformers themselves?

 

I agree with them but it should also be pointed out that the idea one could be a Baptist and accept homosexuality and sodomy as an acceptable lifestyle for Baptists or even make heroes out of Fosdick or Bishop Spawn (I mean Spong ) would have been excluded from Baptists in the past be they Particular or General Baptists.

 

Three points:

- Likewise a Southern Baptist who opposed slavery would have been in a tiny minority in the Nineteenth Century. Specific doctrines do change over time, the fundamental baptist principles do not.

- As I've said repeatedly, I feel the need to distance myself somewhat from Bishop Spong. I am far more conservative than him on many issue. We do happen to agree on homosexuality.

- Fosdick was a baptist.

Joshua

 

Thomas, even on that fundamental principle my guess is your list would be long or mainstream, but not both. Even those who agreed to that principle, however, would likely recognize that the "scholarship" in Trail is bunk.

As for the "faith once delivered to the saints" that is the fundamental belief that Jesus was the Son of God, died for our sins, and was resurrected. It has nothing to do with polity or church tradition.

Joshua

 

Joshua: I disagree with your assessment of the scholarship of The Trail of Blood. You say it is "bunk". I'll continue to agree with it until it is properly refuted. It's an eye opener. I see that you have been very active in this forum during the past year. What I've read of your postings & opinions far more resembles "bunk" to me than The Trail of Blood could ever be accused of. I believe that Paul's instruction to Timothy (2Tim. 4:2&3) Applies to the "modern" scholarship of our day. One of us is not enduring sound doctrine. Some Baptists do endure sound doctrine, but many have or are, falling away. I appreciate the sound doctrine presented in this discussion and I am very concerned for that which is not sound and for those who lack discernment. You write with such authority, but I am very leary of your self professed "liberal" views. May I ask where you went to school?

 

The Trail of Blood idea is no different than the claim that the Church of Christ makes about going all the way back to Pentecost. Both groups display a kind of historylessness - as though history has no influence on the churches of either group.

 

Josh said,

And Judas was one of the original 12 apostles also.

My CBF friends dodge the fact that Fosdick denied the virgin birth of Christ, the resurrection of Christ and Christ Deity. Apparently to them those are not essentials of the faith. The only differance between Fosdick and Bishop Spawn is one was a Baptist and the other is Anglican. And if Spong is not someday converted he will join Fosdick and Judas in the infernal regions.

 

I pointed you to several baptist historians whose work clearly and explicitly refutes the Trail of Blood. What more are you asking for?

B.A. in Spanish Literature with minors in English and Philosophy from Berry College.

M.Div. with elective concentrations in biblical studies and homiletics from Mercer University.

Postgraduate work in Rhetoric at the University of Georgia.

Joshua

 

Josh,
I'll continue to agree that we are definitely "Different Kinds of Baptists" *smile* Good day!