Dump Reformed, adopt Historic or Founders

[Bartimaeus]

mioque
CH Spurgeon cites in his publication "Sword and Trowell" Aug 1868, as he was giving a review of JM Cramp's book "Baptist History", that there was a Baptist Church @ Hill Cliffe, Cheshire, with an origin of 1323. This pre-dates the protestant deformation. Are JM Cramp's works also fabricated? Am I mistaken that some time ago I read that you have studied European history related to Christianity? If so, you should certainly be able to give us some specific information on your position. Please help us.
How do you know Davis never saw much Welsh documentation himself? Fabrication is a strong charge. Please advise.
Thanks ------Bart

 

[Bartimaeus]

Brother James,
Were you by inference stating that I hold to the position that you presented in your last post?
Thanks ----Bart

 

[mioque]

"Are JM Cramp's works also fabricated?"
"
This book you mean?
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/cramp/toc.htm
I'm new to Cramp, haven't found the 1323 bit yet.

"I read that you have studied European history related to Christianity? "
"
I've got a doctorate in churchhistory. To be fair my specialty isn't the baptist history of Wales.
I will say that churchhistory is filled with denominations that 'expanded' their own history backwards.

"How do you know Davis never saw much Welsh documentation himself?"
"
I didn't find anything in his book which he didn't seem to get out of the work of Thomas*.
But you are right I don't know enough about Davis to be certain. If this was an article I was writing for a magazine instead of a thread on a messageboard I wouldn't be shooting from the hip like this.

*At least Joshua thomas actually existed and apparently did write a book on the baptist history of Wales.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I am a Baptist, too, but the english separatists are my heritage. 1600.

There were BAPTISTIC groups, many of whom might be mistaken for some of the weird birds that roost in our Baptist tree today - most would be classified as somewhat heretical.

But >>gasp<< when folks talk about First Baptist Church of Jerusalem, it is a JOKE!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by rbell:
I'm going to regret this, but here goes...

Just because something is "historic," does that make it the correct path to follow? I'm not talking about the historicity of scripture, but rather the idea that I must be loyal to the genesis idea of the movement.

I'm Southern Baptist. But I don't at all agree with one of the causes of the SBC's founding--their lack of opposition to slavery. That position is "historic," but it's not my position.

(carefully picks hat up out of ring)

Please don't try to drag a red herring into this discussion. The historic Baptist Faith I am talking about had nothing to do with slavery. If you don't believe me read the Abstract of Principles of the Southern Seminary. They are short. If you are still not convinced read the Philadelphia Confession, the 1689 London Confession or the 1644 London Confession. In any event please be courteous enough not to try to divert thuis discussion.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
Rewriting history doesn't change facts. English Baptists come from strongly reformed doctrinal stock.

I am not trying to rewrite history. There is nothing in Baptist polity and practice that are remnants of a Roman Cathilic heritage as there in the Reformation Churches.

There have always been churches that dissented from the Romonan or Eastern Orthodox communions. I would not argue as some do that these churches were Baptist. Furthermore, I would note that the doctrine of election and the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation did not originate with the reformers but with the Bible!

The point I am trying to make in the OP is that the name Reformed carries a lot of baggage among those of the Baptist Faith. I simply believe that the Doctrines of Grace which were an essential aspect of the Historic Baptist [Particular] Faith and the Southern Baptist Faith as enumerated in the named confessions have a better chance of being accepted among Baptists if we avoid the term Reformed.

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
The first London Confession was so good that it was "borrowed" for the Westminister Confession - which was rewritten in much loftier language. Then "borrowed" back for the second Confession.

We can agree on this point, although I suspect that the Presbyterians would strongly disagree. They would say you are rewriting history.

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
But apart from some changes in church polity, baptism, the historic Baptist doctrinal position is closely akin to the historic Reformation doctrinal position.

I would not argue that the historic Baptist [Particular] position on election and Sovereign Grace are not closely akin to the position of the Reformers. I would simply note again that the doctrine of election and the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation did not originate with the reformers but with the Bible! However, as I noted in the OP I see nothing in Baptist polity and practice that is derived from the Roman or Easter Orthodox Communions.

Most, if not all, of the Churches that came out of the reformation practice infant baptism or baptismal regeneration, have a clerical heirarchy, and take an unScriptural view of the Lord's Supper. Baptists do not.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Someone may well talk about going back in time. You cannot turn back time and live life as if it were then. God's work is done now not in the past. The Holy Spirit works now, not in the past.

You might consider the following Scripture before you get in over your head!

Malachi 3:6 For I am the LORD, I change not;

Jeremiah 6:16 Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.

Don't be like those who ignored the prophet Jeremiah who declared We will not walk therein.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Brother James:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mioque:
Fabricated.
Davis 'massaged' his ancient Welsh sources in the same way Riplinger and Hislop did for their books.

I thought the Baptist church started with John the Baptist when he by inspiration penned the King James Bible.

</font>[/QUOTE]No! It was started by Jesus Christ. It just got corrupted by the perversity of man with time.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by mioque:
"First: Baptist Churches did not come from the Reformation movement."
"
Except that they did.

Prove it!

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by Ron Arndt:
Dr Bob is correct in his post. The historic Baptists, especially of the English era were reformed and Calvinistic in their doctrines. Just refer to the English Baptist John Gill's commentary for proof of this. The main difference of the English Baptist and Geneva reformers was the mode of baptism and believer's baptism. This was the dividing issue.

You correctly state that the mode of baptism and believer's baptism was the [perhaps more correctly "a"] dividing issue. Horever, it cannot be too strongly stated that the true Church consists of believers only and a that a Biblical local church should consist of believers only who have received Scriptural Baptism.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by gb93433:
The first Baptist churches practiced infant baptism for a short while.

Some on this thread have already argued that all history is biased so where is your proof?

 

[OldRegular]

I thought it worthwhile to repeat the OP for those who seem to have trouble understanding the purpose.

"There is a very welcome movement within the Southern Baptist Churches to return to the historic doctrines of the Church, particularly in regard to the Doctrines of Grace. The term, Reformed, is frequently applied to this movement and the associated Churches.

I frankly think that use of this term is both incorrect and counterproductive.

First: Baptist Churches did not come from the Reformation movement. Most, if not all, Churches that came out of the Reformation still retain some of the errors of Roman Catholicism, for example: infant Baptism and, among some groups, Baptismal Regeneration.

Second: There is a definite repugnance among Baptists to the name Reformed. They associate it with some of the errors of the Reformation Churches and therefore reject the notion of Reformed Baptists without knowing what these Baptists believe.

In my opinion Baptists would be much better served if they talked about returning to the Historic Baptist Faith. Perhaps those who are associated with the Founders movement have recognized this though I believe, but am not certain, that they use the term, Reformed, on occasion.

The Historic Baptist Faith is perhaps best represented by the 1689 Baptist Confession [Second London Confession] or the Philadelphia Confession, the American version. This Historic Baptist Faith is summarized by the Abstract of Principles of the first Southern Baptist Seminary and is still in effect at Southern Seminary."

Please note:
1. The OP notes that there is within the Southern Baptist Church a movement to return to the historic doctrines of the Church, particularly in regard to the Doctrines of Grace.
2. Churches involved in this movement frequently uses the term Reformed.
3. The point of the OP was that because of the bias against this name "Reformed" the use of a different term might be more preferable.

Please note further:

4. There is no effort to suggest that all Southern Baptists should return to the historic doctrines of Grace. Most Southern Baptist Churches are well entrenched in the slough of Arminianism and Dispensationalism and there is little hope of recovery.

Unfortunately, rather than discuss the point of the OP there have been remarks about:

1. Slavery.
2. The rewriting of history.
3. The validity/perversion of history.
4. The usefulness of history. [ I would point out here that the Scriptures themselves are a record of the history of the Faith.]

 

[mioque]

OldRegular
"Prove it! "
"
Let's see how that would play out...

I would, say post a link to a history text that explains how the baptists are a product of the english separatists and are simply part of what we call overhere the Nadere Reformatie.
You would counter, with the (in itself very reasonable) point that I've only shown that there are multiple p.o.v.'s. Proof that yours' is the right one woman!
And doing that Reg would involve expenses, time and work, mostly but not exclusively on my part.
And I don't get payed to do this.

 

[Ron Arndt]

OlRegular

Your post was excellent and right on the money. Baptists did not spring from the reformation.The Baptists really didn't begin until the 16th century, while the reformation began in the 14th.

I don't believe Southern Baptists are eager to place themselves under the old Baptist creeds(16th century and on) though. For they definitely were Calvinistic. I believe leaders in the SBC who really are following after God, want to "clean house" from all the corrupt teachings that have been brought in in the last 50 years and return to the historic beliefs of the SBC, when it was first founded at the turn of the 19th century.

 

[mioque]

"The Baptists really didn't begin until the 16th century, while the reformation began in the 14th."
"
Ahum... those 95 theses of Luther were in 1517.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by mioque:
"The Baptists really didn't begin until the 16th century, while the reformation began in the 14th."
"
Ahum... those 95 theses of Luther were in 1517.

I repeat again. Church history shows that there have always been dissenters from the Roman and Orthodox communions!

 

[Ron Arndt]

Actually there was a reformation before Luther and that was by the Albengensies who were considered heretics by the Catholic church. Many were Ana-baptists. They re baptized many of those who were baptized as infants.

 

[mioque]

Ron
Charming.
In one post you link the baptists to the 16th century and the fullblown Reformation to the 14th. The next post you link the baptists to the 14th century and to the Albigenses who were about as Christian as the Mormons.
Their contemporaries the Waldenses are a much more Christian group.

Look us modernday baptists are the descendants of the Radical Reformation, that's the folks in the 16th century who had the opinion that folks like Luther and Calvin did not go far enough.
Certainly there are big similarities (differences as well) in the believes of us and many earlier dissenters, but that doesn't mean the baptists can be directly traced back to them.

 

[mioque]

OldRegular
"Church history shows that there have always been dissenters from the Roman and Orthodox communions! "
"
Yes. So?

 

[Ron Arndt]

mioque

The Albengenses were NOT Baptists as we understand Baptists today. Nor were they the for- runners of the first English Baptist church in the 16th century. They RE baptized those who were baptized as infants by the Catholic church. A great deal of them were 7th day Sabbath keepers and believed in soul sleep. Baptists today do not hold to such teachings.