Sola Scriptura

[Dr. Walter]

But what about the gates of hell not prevailing agianst his church? Surely, there would be evidence of it surely, yet there is not.

There is no evidence "in your mind" because you accept Rome's recorded view of history. However, even Rome's recorded view of history contains obvious conflicts between their own historians. Rome acknowledges evidence of their existence and contains information gained from their writings.

For example, Augustine has a whole volume against the Donatists with supposed quotations of the Donatists in his debate with them. However, can we trust the opponent is such a debate to present both sides fairly? Why don't we have anything from the other side preserved?

Here is the bottom line, we are told that we must trust Rome to fairly represent those they condemned to death when their own testimony of their opponents are riddled with contradictions and different interpretations by various Roman historians.

Do you know of any instance in history where those who destroyed their opponents over religious differences could be trusted to give a fair presentation of what their opponents believed?

Look at the conflicting reports by Roman Inquisitors about what the Waldenses believed?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The Bible says: "The Lord knows them that are his."
There will always be those that are true to him on this earth; they will never be in the majority; but always in the minority. Ever since the foundation of Christianity they have been in the minority. There is no such thing as a Christian nation. Biblical Christianity is a minority. When Christians came to America to escape persecution they were only persecuted by others. That is what you will find in a history of the Baptists.

You ever hear of the kingdom of Heaven? The entire body of Christ are members of this nation both here and in the resurrection. You logic is still flawed. God would have preserved the works of the Landmarkist just like he did the Jews.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no evidence "in your mind" because you accept Rome's recorded view of history. However, even Rome's recorded view of history contains obvious conflicts between their own historians. Rome acknowledges evidence of their existence and contains information gained from their writings.

For example, Augustine has a whole volume against the Donatists with supposed quotations of the Donatists in his debate with them. However, can we trust the opponent is such a debate to present both sides fairly? Why don't we have anything from the other side preserved?

Here is the bottom line, we are told that we must trust Rome to fairly represent those they condemned to death when their own testimony of their opponents are riddled with contradictions and different interpretations by various Roman historians.

Do you know of any instance in history where those who destroyed their opponents over religious differences could be trusted to give a fair presentation of what their opponents believed?

Look at the conflicting reports by Roman Inquisitors about what the Waldenses believed?

The truth is always is evident. As you read through history and historical documents opponents always give evidence of what the opposition held if by an off comment like Pliny the lessor. He disdanes Christians yet in his letter to the emperor we find a lot about what Christians actually believed. This is how it always is throughout history. yet there still is not suggestion of landmark baptist.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You ever hear of the kingdom of Heaven? The entire body of Christ are members of this nation both here and in the resurrection. You logic is still flawed. God would have preserved the works of the Landmarkist just like he did the Jews.

There was no concentrated effort to destroy all the writings of the Jews over an 1800 year period by fellow professed Jews! However, there was a concentrated effort to destroy writings as well as the true churches of God by fellow professed christians for over 1800 years.

In spite of it, there is a TRAIL OF BLOOD as well as bits and pieces of preserved confessions here and there throughout this period proving the existence of a people who opposed pedobaptism and church salvation and yet claimed to be the true apostolic churches of Christ with the keys fo the kingdom in their possession while consistently claiming Rome to be the Great Whore of Revelation.

 

[DHK]

You ever hear of the kingdom of Heaven? The entire body of Christ are members of this nation both here and in the resurrection. You logic is still flawed. God would have preserved the works of the Landmarkist just like he did the Jews.

One can tell by your very language that a flawed theology leads to a flawed history. What universal body of Christ? What universal church? The term "kingdom of heaven" was largely reserved for the Jews, as it is found largely in Matthews gospel (though sometimes used interchangeably with the "kingdom of God." With all these theological differences how on earth do you expect to have a proper view of "church" history.

First it is a history of "churches" properly speaking; not the history of any one denomination, organization, or more appropriate "business" which the RCC is.
The Apostle Paul started churches not a "church". I defy you to demonstrate in the Bible where there is any such thing as a denomination. The word ekkesia means "assembly" and if you read Darby's translation of the NT, you will find a more accurate understanding of what a church is. Thus in the apostolic age it was a history of churches.

In a so-called universal church, where does it meet; who is the pastor; who are the deacons; who takes up the collection (tithes and offerings); etc. The word means assembly. Have you ever heard of an unassembled assembly--a contradiction of terms?

No wonder your views of history are flawed. You don't know what "church" history is, because you don't know what to look for. Look for churches, independent churches; not denominations.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

There was no concentrated effort to destroy all the writings of the Jews over an 1800 year period by fellow professed Jews! However, there was a concentrated effort to destroy writings as well as the true churches of God by fellow professed christians for over 1800 years.

In spite of it, there is a TRAIL OF BLOOD as well as bits and pieces of preserved confessions here and there throughout this period proving the existence of a people who opposed pedobaptism and church salvation and yet claimed to be the true apostolic churches of Christ with the keys fo the kingdom in their possession while consistently claiming Rome to be the Great Whore of Revelation.

Amen. For those who might wish a history of this I commend J.A. Wylie's "The History of Protestantism" Sometimes the beliefs of the early churches are only recorded in the charges laid against them by their enemies because their persecutors so laid waste to them and destroyed their writings.

And even those crimes which they were accused of are enough, though not complete sufficient, to shoe their apostolic fidelity.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The truth is always is evident. As you read through history and historical documents opponents always give evidence of what the opposition held if by an off comment like Pliny the lessor. He disdanes Christians yet in his letter to the emperor we find a lot about what Christians actually believed. This is how it always is throughout history. yet there still is not suggestion of landmark baptist.

Have you read William Jones History of the Christian Church??? He produces confessions by the Roman inquisitors of what they really believed in contrast to what other Roman inquisitors claimed they believed.

Have you read W.A. Jarrell's Baptist Church Perpetuity where Jarrell provides a wide variety of non-baptist historians testimony to the conflicting reports among the Roman historians to these people?

Have you read Samuel Moreland's introduction to the Churches of the valley of the Piemont?

Have you read Van Braught's Martyrs Mirror?

Have you read Newmans "the history of Antipedobaptists"?

Have you read "Ecclesiastical Researches" by Robert Robinson the unitarian Baptist?

Have you read John T. Christian's first volume of "A history of the Baptists"?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Have you read William Jones History of the Christian Church??? He produces confessions by the Roman inquisitors of what they really believed in contrast to what other Roman inquisitors claimed they believed.

Have you read W.A. Jarrell's Baptist Church Perpetuity where Jarrell provides a wide variety of non-baptist historians testimony to the conflicting reports among the Roman historians to these people?

Have you read Samuel Moreland's introduction to the Churches of the valley of the Piemont?

Have you read Van Braught's Martyrs Mirror?

Have you read Newmans "the history of Antipedobaptists"?

Have you read "Ecclesiastical Researches" by Robert Robinson the unitarian Baptist?

Have you read John T. Christian's first volume of "A history of the Baptists"?

Do these hold to a landmarkist perspective? Because that would be reading a biased observation. Not that I wouldn't but their spin would be decidedly one view. I wouldn't mind compare and contrast to see what they would say.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Do these hold to a landmarkist perspective? Because that would be reading a biased observation. Not that I wouldn't but their spin would be decidedly one view. I wouldn't mind compare and contrast to see what they would say.

Robert Robinson is not a Landmarker. He is a unitarian Anabaptist but well documented with the original quotes in the original languages in the footenotes.

Samuel Moreland is a Presbyterian not a Landmarker

Albert Newman opposed Landmarkers

Van Braught is a Dutch Mennonite not a Landmarker

 

[BobRyan]

In some ways your are right. Early Monk historians provided caracture of people they disagreed with. However, we have close to unaminity with regard to Their Holiness requirement, Style of Prophesy, Charisma, Establishment of their societies. Again we can refer reliably to Tertullian a convert. Those I listed were the specific charges that were in doubt. Just to clarify.
Also note that in our society the liberals try to paint conservative in a certain manner but note they have not nor can obliterate traces of conservatives our our actual thoughts which can be assertained by 1) the liberal persepective of them 2) Our own words by the same media. Ie books, tv, radio, and music. This would be true of early disenters of the Catholic Church.

If your intent is to drill down to the foundation of the "Sola Scriptura" argument it is pointless to review whether Monks like Martin Luther or Tertullian were pious or not. It is a side trail that has little to do with validating the issue of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine.

The questions to be answered are -
1. Does the Bible demand sola scriptura testing of doctrine.
2. How does that fit with the historic fact that scripture was still being added at the time?
3. Do those who claim to respect sola scriptura testing of doctrine - resort to tradition over the Bible - "anyway" whenever it suits them?

These facts seem to be beyond question - yet it is difficult for this group to see the point.

Not sure why -

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If your intent is to drill down to the foundation of the "Sola Scriptura" argument it is pointless to review whether Monks like Martin Luther or Tertullian were pious or not. It is a side trail that has little to do with validating the issue of sola scriptura testing of all doctrine.

The questions to be answered are -
1. Does the Bible demand sola scriptura testing of doctrine.
2. How does that fit with the historic fact that scripture was still being added at the time?
3. Do those who claim to respect sola scriptura testing of doctrine - resort to tradition over the Bible - "anyway" whenever it suits them?

These facts seem to be beyond question - yet it is difficult for this group to see the point.

Not sure why -

in Christ,

Bob

You don't understand the argument. The argument is that IF there were Landmarkist Baptist in the first century there would surely be evidence. Yet, the opposition maintains that the Montanist, Paulicans, Donatist were actually anabaptist. In once sence they are in that there is re-baptism. However, apart from that there are none of the trade mark distinctives that would bring in mind a proto baptist. The fact is each of these groups were sacramental in belief and practice. The opposition also maintains that this is "record" of them is only maintained because their Roman enemies wrote untruths about their beliefs and practices. I've shown that Tertullian is a pro Montanist convert thus the information about their beliefs and practices were well known despite the fact certain other monks made caracatures of them. Also note that caracatures can easily be done away with by the monks own writings. The simple truth is that there is no evidence for these "proto-baptist". My suggestion is and always has been the church developed and changed (evolved) over time and the Holy Spirit continued to reveal more of what was meant in scriptures. In otherwords. The apostles didn't teach against every eventuality. But the base truths have not changed. As eventualities arose which were not addressed the Holy Spirit lead the church into a fuller and better understanding of scriptures to be applied to that specific eventuality thought it doesn't happen without effort or argument.

 

[BobRyan]

You don't understand the argument. The argument is that IF there were Landmarkist Baptist in the first century there would surely be evidence. Yet, the opposition maintains that the Montanist, Paulicans, Donatist were actually anabaptist. In once sence they are in that there is re-baptism. However, apart from that there are none of the trade mark distinctives that would bring in mind a proto baptist. The fact is each of these groups were sacramental in belief and practice. The opposition also maintains that this is "record" of them is only maintained because their Roman enemies wrote untruths about their beliefs and practices.

The argument about whether modern Baptists are reflective of the pure doctrine of the first century church is moot because denominations today who hold to sola scriptura testing of all doctrine - include many non-Baptist groups who would ALL say that Baptists are in doctrinal error today on some point - and thus are not the pure reflection (in terms of doctrine) of the first century church.

yet all these groups - including baptists would agree on the Bible principle for testing all doctrine sola scriptura.

It is like observing that all Christians accept the Bible as the "Word of God" even though not all christians agree on doctrine. You cannot refute that point by entering into an argument about whether this or that Christian church traces its history to the first century in an unchanged line of belief.

The simple truth is that there is no evidence for these "proto-baptist".

The sola scriptura argument does not depend on "proto baptist" arguments. If the subject title were "who is the one true church of today" or "what church has the pure doctrine of the NT saints" then I can see arguing over whether the proto-baptists existed in the first century or the RCC actually had Peter ruling from Rome in the first century, but given the subject of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine - it does not fit here IMHO.

My suggestion is and always has been the church developed and changed (evolved) over time and the Holy Spirit continued to reveal more of what was meant in scriptures. In otherwords. The apostles didn't teach against every eventuality. But the base truths have not changed.

In John 16 Christ said "I have many more things to teach you but you cannot bear them now -- the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth".

The understanding of truth is progressive over time.

But that does not delete or abolish the concept of testing all teaching against the Bible to see if it is contradicted by the Word of God.

As eventualities arose which were not addressed the Holy Spirit lead the church into a fuller and better understanding of scriptures to be applied to that specific eventuality thought it doesn't happen without effort or argument.

no doubt - but again this does not refute the principle of sola scriptura testing.

Acts 17:11 is a perfect example of sola scriptura testing of teaching at the SAME time that more scripture was being added.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The argument about whether modern Baptists are reflective of the pure doctrine of the first century church is moot because denominations today who hold to sola scriptura testing of all doctrine - include many non-Baptist groups who would ALL say that Baptists are in doctrinal error today on some point - and thus are not the pure reflection (in terms of doctrine) of the first century church.

yet all these groups - including baptists would agree on the Bible principle for testing all doctrine sola scriptura.

It is like observing that all Christians accept the Bible as the "Word of God" even though not all christians agree on doctrine. You cannot refute that point by entering into an argument about whether this or that Christian church traces its history to the first century in an unchanged line of belief.




The sola scriptura argument does not depend on "proto baptist" arguments. If the subject title were "who is the one true church of today" or "what church has the pure doctrine of the NT saints" then I can see arguing over whether the proto-baptists existed in the first century or the RCC actually had Peter ruling from Rome in the first century, but given the subject of "sola scriptura" testing of all doctrine - it does not fit here IMHO.




In John 16 Christ said "I have many more things to teach you but you cannot bear them now -- the Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth".

The understanding of truth is progressive over time.

But that does not delete or abolish the concept of testing all teaching against the Bible to see if it is contradicted by the Word of God.



no doubt - but again this does not refute the principle of sola scriptura testing.

Acts 17:11 is a perfect example of sola scriptura testing of teaching at the SAME time that more scripture was being added.

in Christ,

Bob

You are changing the argument to one of Sola Scriptura which the argument is not really about. But certainly we agree that Scripture is the canon by which dogma is tested against. You have no disagreement with me there.

However, as far as the early Christians I have a question for you. Do you believe that every Christian had a Gideons bible in their back pocket? The NT was written over a period of 40-50 years. How was the average lay christian to be informed of Scripture? Did everyone have a OT in their back pocket? Considering that 95% of the world population was illiterate in that day? How was the Gospel passed?

 

[Dr. Walter]

]The fact is each of these groups were sacramental in belief and practice. The opposition also maintains that this is "record" of them is only maintained because their Roman enemies wrote untruths about their beliefs and practices. I've shown that Tertullian is a pro Montanist convert thus the information about their beliefs and practices were well known despite the fact certain other monks made caracatures of them. Also note that caracatures can easily be done away with by the monks own writings. The simple truth is that there is no evidence for these "proto-baptist". My suggestion is and always has been the church developed and changed (evolved) over time and the Holy Spirit continued to reveal more of what was meant in scriptures. In otherwords. The apostles didn't teach against every eventuality. But the base truths have not changed. As eventualities arose which were not addressed the Holy Spirit lead the church into a fuller and better understanding of scriptures to be applied to that specific eventuality thought it doesn't happen without effort or argument.

Your argument is based solely upon Roman Catholic source materials which they chose to preserve while destroying not merely their opponents but their writings. Hence, you argument is one sided and flawed. Moreover, the very source materials you are using have been matters of debate.

Second, your developing church theory repudiates the scriptural teaching concerning the essentials of New Testament Christianity and the New Testament church. You are forced to recognize as "the church" what the Scriptures command to be recognized as "accursed" due to their total repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ from a very early period in the ECF.

Therefore, your position is TOTALLY flawed as it depends upon biased source materials that are subject to debate and assumes a position that is "ACCURSED" by INSPIRED source materials.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Your argument is based solely upon Roman Catholic source materials which they chose to preserve while destroying not merely their opponents but their writings. Hence, you argument is one sided and flawed. Moreover, the very source materials you are using have been matters of debate.

Second, your developing church theory repudiates the scriptural teaching concerning the essentials of New Testament Christianity and the New Testament church. You are forced to recognize as "the church" what the Scriptures command to be recognized as "accursed" due to their total repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ from a very early period in the ECF.

Therefore, your position is TOTALLY flawed as it depends upon biased source materials that are subject to debate and assumes a position that is "ACCURSED" by INSPIRED source materials.

You are entirely wrong. My material is not soley catholic source material. So you err on that behalf. There are many non christian writers of the day that we can also access people who ridiculed christians such as Ammianus Marcellinus etc. What you fail to understand is that my view is the majority view and also it is based on FACT. Rather than speculation which ultimately your view falls under. We can discuss the finds at Dura Europa, Megiddo prison, resent finds in Italy, Romania, Turkey, Egypt, etc... We can discuss the actual documents discovered and promulgated. And they all point to the same history. A few men with an axe to grind for their belief system who want to speculate on your side of the debate and the far left of the debate like Crossan are in error.

 

[DHK]

You are changing the argument to one of Sola Scriptura which the argument is not really about. But certainly we agree that Scripture is the canon by which dogma is tested against. You have no disagreement with me there.

The argument usually does boil down to sola scriptura.

However, as far as the early Christians I have a question for you. Do you believe that every Christian had a Gideons bible in their back pocket? The NT was written over a period of 40-50 years. How was the average lay christian to be informed of Scripture? Did everyone have a OT in their back pocket? Considering that 95% of the world population was illiterate in that day? How was the Gospel passed?

In this you greatly err. Let me emphasis to you again. It was Alexander the Great, the Greeks, that gave the world the Greek language. It was a universal language--thus the Bible was written in Koine Greek--the Greek of the common person. It is more like 95% of the population were literate, not illiterate. Even the slaves could read. When the slave Onesimus went to Paul, and Paul advised him to go back to his master, Philemon, we have every evidence that Oneismus could read the Scriptures. He was a runaway slave. The world at that time was a very literate society and we have no evidence to believe the contrary.

The Gospel was passed on the very same way it is today--by evangelism, by the preaching of the word of God. Paul went into the market places and preached the Word of God. Sometimes he went into the synagogues and preached there. He preached wherever he had access: where the women gathered (with Lydia), in jail in Philippi to the Philippian jailor; Philip to the Ethiopian Eunuch in a chariot, etc. It didn't matter. They went every where and in every place preaching the word of God. Almost all were literate.

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
--Paul asks for his coat (it was cold in Rome), the books (probably the OT), and the parchments (no doubt NT MSS that had already been written and were in his possession).

2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
--Peter recognizes NT Scripture already in existence, especially the Scripture of Paul.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
--The faith refers here to a body of doctrine that has been written down.
Jude was written in 70 A.D., when all but the writings of John had been written. He was referring to that which had been written by "the saints," the NT saints. They were to contend for that written NT doctrine that was written in NT MSS.

What many fail to believe is that through apostolic instruction the early church knew which books were inspired and which were not. The Canon was decided much earlier than the RCC would have you believe. Why are you and so many others deceived by the RCC that they were the ones that gave us the Bible. That is "bunk"!

 

[Dr. Walter]

Marshall all the arguments you like. The bottom line is that INSPIRED HISTORY has already proclaimed what is FACT versus FICTION in regard to anything produced by man - so let God be true and EVERY man a liar. The inspired FACT is that all men, all churches, all institutions, earthly or heavenly which preach "another gospel" are ACCURSED rather than a "true" preacher, church, denomination.

The ECF from about 150 forward progressively preaches another gospel of water regeneration and therefore the ECF is FACTUALLY "accursed" by INSPIRED HISTORICAL WRITINGS. Therefore, it is FICTION to teach or believe that ECF is a progressive transformation of the "true" church IF God's Word is final in authority.

You believe what you like (even though you have not even studied the alternative evidence provided by non-Landmark historians). I will take the side of scriptural FACT that ECF is from the point water regeneration is embraced is a history of APOSTASY and of an ACCURSED church. I will choose to stand with men like Sir Isaac Newton, not only a brilliant scientist, theologion, but historian, who unlike you, studied the alternative evidences and came away believing that true gospel churches have existed from the apostolic era to his present day apart and separate from those who embraced another gospel and eventually labeled as Roman Catholicism:

"The modern Baptists, formerly known as Anabaptists, are the only people who have never symbolized with Rome" - William Whiston, Memoirs of Whiston, quoted in W.A. Jarrell's Baptist Church Perpetuity. (Dallas. 1894), [reprinted by Calvary's Book Store, Ashland, Ky] p. 313

I will side with the research and conclusions by two Reformed Scholars commissioned by the King of Holland in attempting to find the most ancient and scriptural denomination as the potential church of Holland:

"We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites were the original Waldeneses, and who have long in history received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community whch has stood since the days of the aposltes, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel thorugh all ages." Ypeij en Dermout, Gershiedenis Der nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk (Breda 1819) quoted by J.T. Christian in A History of the Baptists (Texarkana, AR; Bogard Press, 1922) vol. 1, pp. 95-96.

You go right ahead and take the word of the Persecutor and Murder of saints, I will take the Word of God (Gal. 1:8-9; Rev. 17-18) and the word of historians who can see through the contradictions as well as postive confessions of Roman historians.

You are entirely wrong. My material is not soley catholic source material. So you err on that behalf. There are many non christian writers of the day that we can also access people who ridiculed christians such as Ammianus Marcellinus etc. What you fail to understand is that my view is the majority view and also it is based on FACT. Rather than speculation which ultimately your view falls under. We can discuss the finds at Dura Europa, Megiddo prison, resent finds in Italy, Romania, Turkey, Egypt, etc... We can discuss the actual documents discovered and promulgated. And they all point to the same history. A few men with an axe to grind for their belief system who want to speculate on your side of the debate and the far left of the debate like Crossan are in error.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Marshall all the arguments you like. The bottom line is that INSPIRED HISTORY has already proclaimed what is FACT versus FICTION in regard to anything produced by man - so let God be true and EVERY man a liar. The inspired FACT is that all men, all churches, all institutions, earthly or heavenly which preach "another gospel" are ACCURSED rather than a "true" preacher, church, denomination. .

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: Inspired history! Thats a good one! History just is. Fact just is. There is no need of the Holy Spirit to inspire a prophet to determine what history or fact is. That is the problem the KJO people get into. There is no need for the autographs to be inspired since the translators were!!! Inspired history? No need for fact then huh because history is not a matter of observable data tested and proved but one of faith. LOL.

The ECF from about 150 forward progressively preaches another gospel of water regeneration and therefore the ECF is FACTUALLY "accursed" by INSPIRED HISTORICAL WRITINGS. Therefore, it is FICTION to teach or believe that ECF is a progressive transformation of the "true" church IF God's Word is final in authority.

It is perplexing have you read JND Kelly?

You believe what you like (even though you have not even studied the alternative evidence provided by non-Landmark historians). I will take the side of scriptural FACT that ECF is from the point water regeneration is embraced is a history of APOSTASY and of an ACCURSED church.

Ok go ahead.

I

will choose to stand with men like Sir Isaac Newton, not only a brilliant scientist, theologion, but historian, who unlike you, studied the alternative evidences and came away believing that true gospel churches have existed from the apostolic era to his present day apart and separate from those who embraced another gospel and eventually labeled as Roman Catholicism:

Who also delved in Alchemy, was a Socinian sympathiser not believing in the Trinity. Keynes became disallusioned with Newton because of his private manuscripts Keynes discovered

an Isaac Newton who seemed obsessed with religion and devoted to the occult.

, who also threatened to burn the down the house around his mother and Stepfather. So I'm glad you stand with the man.

"The modern Baptists, formerly known as Anabaptists, are the only people who have never symbolized with Rome" - William Whiston, Memoirs of Whiston, quoted in W.A. Jarrell's Baptist Church Perpetuity. (Dallas. 1894), [reprinted by Calvary's Book Store, Ashland, Ky] p. 313

A biased look no doubt by Jarrell being baptist and all however not all baptist agree with him.

I will side with the research and conclusions by two Reformed Scholars commissioned by the King of Holland in attempting to find the most ancient and scriptural denomination as the potential church of Holland:

"We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites were the original Waldeneses, and who have long in history received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community whch has stood since the days of the aposltes, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrines of the gospel thorugh all ages." Ypeij en Dermout, Gershiedenis Der nederlandsche Hervormde Kerk (Breda 1819) quoted by J.T. Christian in A History of the Baptists (Texarkana, AR; Bogard Press, 1922) vol. 1, pp. 95-96.

You go right ahead and take the word of the Persecutor and Murder of saints, I will take the Word of God (Gal. 1:8-9; Rev. 17-18) and the word of historians who can see through the contradictions as well as postive confessions of Roman historians

You can side with an unrealiable Dane if you wish who was commisioned by the King to find answers that suited the king. Strange how only the Landmarkist baptist, primative baptist and certain, IFB mention this Dutch Dr. as viable reference. Certainly questions credibility. Where as many other baptist hold to a different view.

James McGoldrick has provided half the antidote. In Baptist Successionism he demonstrates that this peculiar but popular interpretation of ecclesiastical history is historically untenable. It may be said at the outset that he does so in absolutely convincing fashion...To cite McGoldrick's conclusions is to call the roll of the heroes of Baptist successionism, but in each case the claims made for them by successionists are found to be unsubstantiated: the evidence shows that the Montanists and Novatians were schismatic Catholics, not Baptists; St. Patrick operated under the auspices of the bishop of Rome and did not adhere to the Baptist conception of church, sacraments, or ministry; the Paulicians were not Baptists but separatists from Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, they were anti-Trinitarian, and held an adoptionist Christology; the Bogomils were an extension of a dualistic strain of Paulicianism whose theology was not even Christian, much less Baptist; there is no positive evidence that Peter de Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, or Arnold of Brescia or their followers were Baptists; the Albigenses inherited the extreme dualism of the Bogomils and "held almost nothing in common with modern Baptists" (p. 67); and the medieval Waldenses were similar to the Roman Catholic order of Franciscans, while the later Waldenses were more akin to Presbyterians and Methodists than Baptists. Although the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century might seem on superficial consideration to be genuine ancestors of the Baptists, McGoldrick demonstrates that they held different views than Baptists on the doctrines of revelation, Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology, and that there are no real genetic links between the Anabaptists of the continent and the Baptists of England. Whence the Baptist, then? McGoldrick argues that the main stream of Baptist life was an outgrowth of the Calvinistic Puritan movement in England, where churches of recognizably Baptist persuasion and practice (gathered church, believer's baptism, and baptism by immersion) emerged in the 1630's and 1640's. He shows that these churches were one with their Presbyterian and Congregational brethren in the Calvinistic theology which they shared, even calling themselves Protestant and disavowing any connection with the Anabaptists. If this is the true origin of Baptists, then there is no possibility of a succession of Baptist churches from apostolic times. The Landmark doctrine is, in McGoldrick's words, "a phenomenon of relatively recent origin" (p. 145), having emerged in the nineteenth century and been popularized by J. R. Graves and J. M. Pendelton.
-Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History, American Theological Library Association Monograph Series, by James Edward McGoldrick, Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press, 1994, 181 pp

Baptist successionism...This view is rejected, though, by Catholics, Protestants, most ecclesiastical historians, and almost all secular historians. The theory is built more on a ... scriptural foundation rather than an historical one. Much of the historical evidence needed to support this theory does not exist although those who hold the theory claim it was lost or destroyed. It is also impossible to disprove because it only requires the existence of at least one single church (could be as small as two or three people) during any particular point in history to be true. Adding to the problem is the fact that many of the groups that held the beliefs that Baptists now hold suffered great persecution by governments. If these churches existed, as Landmark Baptists claim, the historical records required to prove the theory may never have existed.

Rather listen to Thomas Armitage

Concerning the matter of church successionism, I agree with the Baptist historian Thomas Armitage (1819-1896). Armitage was born in Yorkshire, England, the great-grandson of Methodist minister Thomas Barrat - “The attempt to show that any religious body has come down from the Apostles an unchanged people is of itself an assumption of infallibility, and contradicts the facts of history. Truth only is changeless, and only as any people have held to the truth in its purity and primitive simplicity has the world had an unchanging religion. The truth has been held by individual men and scattered companies, but never in unbroken continuity by any sect as such. Sect after sect has appeared and held it for a time, then has destroyed itself by mixing error with the truth; again, the truth has evinced its divinity by rising afresh in the hands of a newly organized people, to perpetuate its diffusion in the earth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Of course! The only credible historian to a catholic are catholics. Notice how you thoroughly practice Roman's policy of destroying the character of the historians or persons who oppose your position. You would make a perfect Roman historian. Such are the tactics of Jesuit Preists who infiltrate other institutions and denominations and pose as what they are not.

BTW I don't know of any Scripture that is not inspired history as it was all written in the past before our current era. Much of it when written was "history" of Israel (Gen-Job history of the churches (Acts):laugh:

Why don't you read Thomas Armitage and read him thoroughly about the very people we are talking about! Yes, I know Dr. Armitage was an opponent of Landmark Baptist but look at his historical admissions about the very groups in question.

: Inspired history! Thats a good one! History just is.

 

[Grace&Truth]

Truth only is changeless, and only as any people have held to the truth in its purity and primitive simplicity has the world had an unchanging religion. The truth has been held by individual men and scattered companies, but never in unbroken continuity by any sect as such. Sect after sect has appeared and held it for a time, then has destroyed itself by mixing error with the truth; again, the truth has evinced its divinity by rising afresh in the hands of a newly organized people, to perpetuate its diffusion in the earth.

This seems to actually back up Dr. Walter in the matter of Truth. Once truth is mixed with error the church becomes apostate an ceases to be a NT Church.