Sympathy for the Arminian

[Inspector Javert]

I'm no "authority" on Baptist History...but, it was (and is) something of a passion of mine for some time. What I've learned (or think I've learned) about the topic is that there are two prevailing views which boil down to this:

View 1.) There is something like a continuous line of local Churches which might be generally known as "Baptistic" or in-line with most or all of the Baptist Distinctives which is un-broken since the time of Christ, and that it is reasonable to suggest that modern "Baptist" Churches are the descendants of that heritage

View 2.) The "Church" was or became essentially corrupted sometime around the 4th to 5th Century...and that it was not until the "Reformation" that some sound Theology was known and practiced in what we now call "Churches" and that "Baptist" Churches are an off-spring of that renewal of Biblical Doctrine.

I think BOTH views have merit, actually, even though I am akin to viewing it from perspective 1. (as I phrased it).

Am I "Land-markist"?....... Yes, a little, in that I maintain that there was a "Church" which Christ instituted on Earth which (even if imperfect) did not cease to exist throughout roughly the 1,000 years of the Dark Ages. To believe that it did is to maintain a Theological proposition which is rather awkward to defend I.M.O. It forces us to believe that, unless you consider Catholic congregations to be "true-blue" congregations, than the Biblical New Testament local "Church" was simply wiped-out for 800-1,000 years or so. That isn't an easy Ecclesiological pill to swallow.

Are most "Landmarkists" idiots?......Well, yes...most of them are mere I.F.B. blow-hards....but that doesn't mean that their conclusions are "wrong" per-se. I think most of them are stupid to be honest with you....but, I still agree with them about the KJVO too.

The issue isn't easy.

G.H. Orchard was no fool...and his "History of Baptists" gives some credence to that view.

The problem is, it isn't a STRICTLY historical question...it's an "Historico-Theological" one which insists that you trace a line of independent Theological thought throughout a rather dark and poorly documented millennium.
This is decidedly no easy task. Tracing a History of EVENTS is EASY.....the "History of THOUGHT"...is not so cut-and-dry.

Anyone who thinks this is SIMPLY a matter of "History" does not, I.M.O.....quite understand the nuance of the debate if I may suggest so.

 

[The Archangel]

I'm no "authority" on Baptist History...but, it was (and is) something of a passion of mine for some time. What I've learned (or think I've learned) about the topic is that there are two prevailing views which boil down to this:

View 1.) There is something like a continuous line of local Churches which might be generally known as "Baptistic" or in-line with most or all of the Baptist Distinctives which is un-broken since the time of Christ, and that it is reasonable to suggest that modern "Baptist" Churches are the descendants of that heritage

View 2.) The "Church" was or became essentially corrupted sometime around the 4th to 5th Century...and that it was not until the "Reformation" that some sound Theology was known and practiced in what we now call "Churches" and that "Baptist" Churches are an off-spring of that renewal of Biblical Doctrine.

I think BOTH views have merit, actually, even though I am akin to viewing it from perspective 1. (as I phrased it).

Am I "Land-markist"?....... Yes, a little, in that I maintain that there was a "Church" which Christ instituted on Earth which (even if imperfect) did not cease to exist throughout roughly the 1,000 years of the Dark Ages. To believe that it did is to maintain a Theological proposition which is rather awkward to defend I.M.O. It forces us to believe that, unless you consider Catholic congregations to be "true-blue" congregations, than the Biblical New Testament local "Church" was simply wiped-out for 800-1,000 years or so. That isn't an easy Ecclesiastical pill to swallow.

Are most "Landmarkists" idiots?......Well, yes...most of them are mere I.F.B. blow-hards....but that doesn't mean that their conclusions are "wrong" per-se. I think most of them are stupid to be honest with you....but, I still agree with them about the KJVO too.

The issue isn't easy.

G.H. Orchard was no fool...and his "History of Baptists" gives some credence to that view.

The problem is, it isn't a STRICTLY historical question...it's an "Historico-Theological" one which insists that you trace a line of independent Theological thought throughout a rather dark and poorly documented millennium.
This is decidedly no easy task.

Anyone who thinks this is SIMPLY a matter of "History" does not, I.M.O.....quite understand the nuance of the debate if I may suggest so.

Neither of the "views" you post address, necessarily, the beginning of the Baptist movement. I understand the nuance that wants to say there were Baptists before there were "Baptists." However, that's not really the discussion.

The question is did the Baptists movement (the denomination, so to speak) grow out of the Anabaptists or the English Separatists? The "simple" matter of history at this point is that it was the English Separatists that gave rise to the Baptist movement, not the Anabaptists.

The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

The problem is, it isn't a STRICTLY historical question...it's an "Historico-Theological" one which insists that you trace a line of independent Theological thought throughout a rather dark and poorly documented millennium.
This is decidedly no easy task.

Anyone who thinks this is SIMPLY a matter of "History" does not, I.M.O.....quite understand the nuance of the debate if I may suggest so.

It is indeed an historical thing. Baptistic-oriented congregations pre-1609 did not exist despite history staring some modern Baptists in the face.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

What makes you avoid a question that has been asked several times of you. I will restate it for you. What makes you think that God is obligated to transfer 100% knowledge to you of His inner workings for the doctrine to be legitimate?

This is yet another typical and dishonest question designed to change the subject to my behavior. Did I say God is obligated to give me the correct view of His special revelation? No, of course not. So it is a strawman argument, attributing to me some silly and ungodly view. Typical deceitful Calvinist behavior.

I simply read scripture and accept it as written. I do not nullify or rewrite verses or word meanings. Choice means choice and not non-Choice. Only a Calvinist would claim choice actually means non-Choice. Christ becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world means all mankind, and not some of mankind. I could go on but it is pointless, no Calvinist will ever admit they are pushing a mistaken doctrine that is obviously mistaken. None, zip nada. They will say, its a mystery and even though it conflicts with many scriptures, God's secret will demands that Calvinism is the correct view. And if you disagree, why you worse than a Gnostic claiming divine insight. LOL

 

[Yeshua1]

This is yet another typical and dishonest question designed to change the subject to my behavior. Did I say God is obligated to give me the correct view of His special revelation? No, of course not. So it is a strawman argument, attributing to me some silly and ungodly view. Typical deceitful Calvinist behavior.

I simply read scripture and accept it as written. I do not nullify or rewrite verses or word meanings. Choice means choice and not non-Choice. Only a Calvinist would claim choice actually means non-Choice. Christ becoming the propitiation or means of salvation for the whole world means all mankind, and not some of mankind. I could go on but it is pointless, no Calvinist will ever admit they are pushing a mistaken doctrine that is obviously mistaken. None, zip nada. They will say, its a mystery and even though it conflicts with many scriptures, God's secret will demands that Calvinism is the correct view. And if you disagree, why you worse than a Gnostic claiming divine insight. LOL

Are you saying that God must save sinners based upon what you deemto be fair and right then?

 

[saturneptune]

I'm no "authority" on Baptist History...but, it was (and is) something of a passion of mine for some time. What I've learned (or think I've learned) about the topic is that there are two prevailing views which boil down to this:

View 1.) There is something like a continuous line of local Churches which might be generally known as "Baptistic" or in-line with most or all of the Baptist Distinctives which is un-broken since the time of Christ, and that it is reasonable to suggest that modern "Baptist" Churches are the descendants of that heritage

View 2.) The "Church" was or became essentially corrupted sometime around the 4th to 5th Century...and that it was not until the "Reformation" that some sound Theology was known and practiced in what we now call "Churches" and that "Baptist" Churches are an off-spring of that renewal of Biblical Doctrine.

I think BOTH views have merit, actually, even though I am akin to viewing it from perspective 1. (as I phrased it).

Am I "Land-markist"?....... Yes, a little, in that I maintain that there was a "Church" which Christ instituted on Earth which (even if imperfect) did not cease to exist throughout roughly the 1,000 years of the Dark Ages. To believe that it did is to maintain a Theological proposition which is rather awkward to defend I.M.O. It forces us to believe that, unless you consider Catholic congregations to be "true-blue" congregations, than the Biblical New Testament local "Church" was simply wiped-out for 800-1,000 years or so. That isn't an easy Ecclesiological pill to swallow.

Are most "Landmarkists" idiots?......Well, yes...most of them are mere I.F.B. blow-hards....but that doesn't mean that their conclusions are "wrong" per-se. I think most of them are stupid to be honest with you....but, I still agree with them about the KJVO too.

The issue isn't easy.

G.H. Orchard was no fool...and his "History of Baptists" gives some credence to that view.

The problem is, it isn't a STRICTLY historical question...it's an "Historico-Theological" one which insists that you trace a line of independent Theological thought throughout a rather dark and poorly documented millennium.
This is decidedly no easy task. Tracing a History of EVENTS is EASY.....the "History of THOUGHT"...is not so cut-and-dry.

Anyone who thinks this is SIMPLY a matter of "History" does not, I.M.O.....quite understand the nuance of the debate if I may suggest so.

Good post. The origin of the Baptist movement makes really little difference. The point is, Christ promised to preserve His church. Anyone with common sense can see it is not the RCC, so for 1500 years something else had to be preserving the church, probably local churches well outside the influence of the Catholic Church. It is possible that some of the modern day Baptist groups directly or indirectly came from those early autonomous churches.