The Baptists...

[Brandan]

I would however like to point out the error of successionist history. Baptists who cling to the "trail of blood" and other heritage are sorely mistaken... All organizations, even the catholic/orthodox church, at one point had much truth. The fact is, God always maintains a remant, but He doesn't need human organizations to do it!

So while I agree with these successionist historians that there were always baptists throughout the course of history, they weren't necessarily called baptistst/donatists/etc... but in fact were individuals and we won't always see a clear "line" of baptist heritage. But no doubt, I believe there have always been true Christians since the time of Christ - and even those that believed in baptizing believers only and held to baptist distincitives, although it's highly likely they were murdered as soon as their beliefs were discovered. I would also suspect these individuals were church officials who had access to the Scriptures.

[disciple]

Originally posted by grebel
I would slightly disagree with you disciple although I mostly agree with you. God has ALWAYS maintained his remnant, and while I would agree with you that much of it is revisionist, I believe there is a hint of truth in it.

when i said "...it has been shown to be in error..." i was referring to the revisionist history that baptists are the orthodox chrisitan line directly to the apostles and not that there has always been a remnant. i agree that there have always been a remnant of elect (i.e., a "true" church that isn't heirarchical or there has always been an invisible church) but i don't think one can trace it through any one visible sect or system throughout history. that is not what ECCLESIA is (i.e., a visible organization) contrary to what many people believe (e.g., roman catholics, Orthodox, mormons, JWs, etc.).

[ron2t]

Originally posted by AbsoluteBubba
Hi,

I recently received an e-mail from a "friend", in which He saidHas anyone read this booklet? A few points in it are

• Baptists are not protestant, because they did not "come out" of the Roman Catholic Church.
• The inspired scriptures, and they only, in fact, the New Testament and that only, to be the rule and guide of faith and life, not only for the church as an organization, but for each individual member of that organization.
• Baptist's in history have gone by names such as Montanist, Tertullianists, Novationists, Paterines, Donatists, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptists; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses.

Any thoughts?

Grace & Peace,
Absolute Bubba

I went to a church in Wyoming that passed out these booklets to members. "trail of blood" by J M Carroll. interesting reading. you can read it for free on the web at biblepreaching.com

[Brandan]

Here's a copy of that book I found on my hard drive...

[Brandan]

http://www.thebaptistpage.com/Readin...Mcgoldrick.htm

[Brandan]

http://www.thebaptistpage.com/Distin...aldensian.html

http://www.pbministries.org/History/..._waldenses.htm

Interesting information on the waldenses! Dating back to 1120, they held to many baptist distinctives...

[Spurgeon2]

i knew some baptists that doesnt allow their men members to have long hairs

Good question


The KJV is very good but few Baptist study the Greek Text which the Bible was written in. I don't know what 'Long Hair' on men meant when King James translated the English Bible but in The Greek it means

To Adorn, To Adorn the Hair

If a Man or Man-Child fixes his hair to where it looks like he is trying to look like a Temple Prostitute, Homosexual, A Woman, Or a Freak of Nature he is adorning his hair.

[ron2t]

Originally posted by Spurgeon2
Good question


The KJV is very good but few Baptist study the Greek Text which the Bible was written in. I don't know what 'Long Hair' on men meant when King James translated the English Bible but in The Greek it means

To Adorn, To Adorn the Hair

If a Man or Man-Child fixes his hair to where it looks like he is trying to look like a Temple Prostitute, Homosexual, A Woman, Or a Freak of Nature he is adorning his hair.

thank you for that info. I believe you are correct. and for the record I have a short pony tail and a full beard.

[jhamrick]

Interesting topic guys. It appears to me that the view of Baptists from around the world is quite different from the view we have here in the south.
Baptists are by far the majority here, and for the most part, cling to no hard rules such as hair length, etc.
I attend Christ Covenant Church, which I guess could be described as a reformed baptist church, though I only know of a couple of the elders who claim full 5-point Calvinism.

This question is for Grebel:
You said:
"Also I can't imagine a church these days recommending the NIV as a legitimate translation for primary bible study. I still use it and find it useful as a commentary; but I'd suggest sticking with a literal translation like the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and etc. for your bible study. However with that being the case, I wouldn't call a KJV only church a cult. The KJV is definitely a fine bible translation "

Really? Why would you say that? ALL of the biblical scholars that I know (most are baptist) say that the KJV is one of the weakest translations from the original language. They say that NASV or RASV are by far the best. MOst would prefer the NIV to KJV.

Just Curious, I hold the belief that it is all God's Word, and that he can speak to us throught it regardless.

[wildboar]

I have had the unfortunate experience of reading the poorly researched "Trail of Blood Tract". Basically it tries to turn every persecuted person into a Baptist. It would take a very long post to every point in it. But basically this pamphlet arose out of the 19th Century from someone who tried to twist everything he could to prove Baptist secessionism. Notice that in many cases he doesn't even cite primary sources but just quotes other Baptists.

Here's just one example of the quotes that are used in the pamphlet:

"During the first three centuries, congregations all over the East subsisted in separate independent bodies, unsupported by government and consequently without any secular power over one another. All this time they were baptized churches, and though all the fathers of the first four ages, down to Jerome (A.D. 370), were of Greece, Syria and Africa, and though they give great numbers of histories of the baptism of adults, yet there is not one of the baptism of a child till the year 370." (Compendium of Baptist History, Shackelford, p. 43; Vedder, p. 50; Christian, p, 31; Orchard, p. 50, etc.)

Now, this would lead one to believe that no children were baptized before the year 370, however we have numerous quotes from the church fathers that show the very opposite.

Irenaeus



"He [Jesus] came to save all through himself; all, I say, who through him are reborn in God: infants, and children, and youths, and old men. Therefore he passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants; a child for children, sanctifying those who are of that age . . . [so that] he might be the perfect teacher in all things, perfect not only in respect to the setting forth of truth, perfect also in respect to relative age" (Against Heresies 2:22:4 [A.D. 189]).

"‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:5]" (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).


Hippolytus



"Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them" (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).


Origen



"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).


Cyprian of Carthage



"As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

"If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another" (ibid., 64:5).

[disciple]

i started a new thread titled "Translation Discussion" and moved the discussion about translations there.

[Yoder]

I am in a GARB church and I don't find the legalism in my church that you are describing in other GARB churches. It is KJV only but the pastor will reference another translation if it will help to explain a passage of scripture further.

No one is really picky about skirts or pants or long hair or whatever.

There are some people in the church that claim that the KJV is the only inspired word of God (which I don't subscribe to but I think only the most faithful of translations should be described as such) but they are tolerated in that belief. If you teach anything out of the bible, it is frowned upon to teach out of anything that isn't KJV.

Legalism is frowned upon and I think that might be a problem in GARBC churches over in the east. But the GARB Churches in the midwest seem to reject legalism.

I am of the camp of sovereign grace through the teaching of my youth pastor (Who also slipped me a copy of Macarthur's "Gospel according to Jesus" when no one was looking.) but I sometimes wonder if the head pastor is only a 4. 5 Calvanist.

I plan to have that conversation with him. I know there is a strong contingent of godly men who believe as I do but I sometimes hear some Arminian type statements from people in my own church. I am still feeling it out.

Anyways, thought I would add to the discussion.

I am new here and I love this message board.

God bless you all.

Yoder

[disciple]

I am in a GARB church and I don't find the legalism in my church that you are describing in other GARB churches.

i'm in a GARB church over in the NW...though i've been told (and have experienced) that we are not a typical GARB church. we are totally anti-legalism (though there are some old folks who still try and cling to old traditions), calvinist friendly (all the staff is ~4 calvinists, whatever that might mean to some), and definitely not KJV-only (there were a couple of KJV-only that were in the area but have since left GARB because we're much too liberal for them ).

I am new here and I love this message board.

welcome to the forum dave! good to have you here!

[wildboar]

My understanding is that the GARB at least started with very Calvinistic roots. Legalism is a problem in almost all churches but certain churches and denominations do seem more prone. I have found most often that legalism and antinomianism walk side by side. Man sets aside God's law and says "we're not under the law, we're under grace" and then creates his own laws that man must follow (don't drink, tithe, etc.). The very nature of Baptist church government often prevents denominational regularity so that if I attend a southern baptist church, the southern baptist church 5 minutes away can be vastly different. Baptist denominations seem to exist for the sake of pooling money to support mission work and other activities rather than because agreement exists in the area of doctrine (with the exception of course of believer's-only baptism). This produces the disadvantage of being unwilling to learn from other's mistakes, while it also provides the advantage of a mistake becoming a standard.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

[disciple]

My understanding is that the GARB at least started with very Calvinistic roots. Legalism is a problem in almost all churches but certain churches and denominations do seem more prone. I have found most often that legalism and antinomianism walk side by side. Man sets aside God's law and says "we're not under the law, we're under grace" and then creates his own laws that man must follow (don't drink, tithe, etc.). The very nature of Baptist church government often prevents denominational regularity so that if I attend a southern baptist church, the southern baptist church 5 minutes away can be vastly different. Baptist denominations seem to exist for the sake of pooling money to support mission work and other activities rather than because agreement exists in the area of doctrine (with the exception of course of believer's-only baptism). This produces the disadvantage of being unwilling to learn from other's mistakes, while it also provides the advantage of a mistake becoming a standard.

Sola Gratia,
WildBoar

thanks for your perspective wildboar but i think your assessment is a bit of a misrepresentation/misunderstanding. the reason for the lack of "regularity" is because of something called soul liberty (beliefs cannot be foisted on people and enforced externally). so in the areas that are considered non-essentials, there is often liberty (full conformity and regularity is not forced by some external confession or council). this is one of the key tenets of baptist theology and understanding of Christianity and why it differs so much from roman catholicism, reformed, lutheran, presbyterian, orthodox, anglican, etc. confessional bodies. perhaps you see this as a weakness, but i see it as a great strength. Christianity is a free and voluntary religion/faith where each individual relates to God in a personal relationship but in a corporate environment. i think the two extremes and dangers is on the one hand, baptistic types (some not all) who emphasize the individual at the expense of the community and on the other hand, catholic and reformed types (some not all) who emphasize community at the expense of the individual. in my opinion, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[disciple]

Baptist denominations seem to exist for the sake of pooling money to support mission work and other activities rather than because agreement exists in the area of doctrine (with the exception of course of believer's-only baptism).

this may apply to some baptist denominations but i wouldn't say that this is the rule.

but i do have a comment on the issue of unity and conformity. i'm currently taking church history in seminary and it is interesting how almost from the get-go (upon the death of the apostles), the response to heretics was to centralize authority and create an external creed/confession. but is this an apostolic method to achieving unity? is centralization of authority and conformity to a creed/confession the basis for unity? interestingly enough, this same method has been duplicated in protestant churches even though they object to the validity of the catholic creeds and the authority of the pope (or the patriarchs).

i personally think that unity is completely different than what we understand it to be today. i think that rather than being a centralization of authority (whether it be in one person or in some council) and conformity to a creed/confession resulting in some arbitrary level uniformity, that unity is something much more fundamental. the way i see it, unity is having many differences and diversities but being in agreement on the gospel.

for example, at the first church council in Acts 15 it would have been very easy and clean for the church to centralize the authority, write up a creed/confession, force external conformity (to the centralized authority and creed/confession), and require a uniformity of practice. but they didn't do that. instead they hashed the details out together (apostles, elders at jerusalem church, and the church) and what resulted was a letter instructing the jewish christians to continue to keep their customs while the gentile christians were welcomed into the church without keeping the jewish customs (though being sensitive to them and thereby deferring to them):

Acts 15:19 "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood. 21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."

so they were allowed to have a difference in practice but required to defer to one another because of their unity on the gospel. shall we pretend that they had complete regularity in their practice? shall we gloss over the differences they had? what i find very interesting is that regularity in practice was not even mentioned and no creed/confession was written up and no authoritative council was established to enforce conformity to the standard and uniformity of practice. instead they were asked to defer to one another, love one another despite their differences, and unite on the gospel.

i think diversity in the body and among the churches is inevitable and perhaps even desirable because it is in these circumstances (differences) that we are taught to love and serve one another out of a pure motive of a desire for the edification of others (it's very easy to love and serve others who are just like us and agree with us on everything). the church isn't meant to be a bunch of cookie-cutter people who all dress alike, look alike, worship alike, act alike, eat alike, understand and relate to God exactly the same, etc. and i think this seems to be the goal of churches and denominations today. this desire for an apparent feeling of unity seems to play itself out in denominations forcing external conformity to a creed/confession and a centralized authority. my contention is that this is not true unity at all but a mere worldly unity (like that seen in sacral societies).

what do you all think of this assessment? i would appreciate any comments/feedback on this thought about unity. thanks!

[Westminster]

i think diversity in the body and among the churches is inevitable and perhaps even desirable because it is in these circumstances (differences) that we are taught to love and serve one another out of a pure motive of a desire for the edification of others (it's very easy to love and serve others who are just like us and agree with us on everything). the church isn't meant to be a bunch of cookie-cutter people who all dress alike, look alike, worship alike, act alike, eat alike, understand and relate to God exactly the same, etc. and i think this seems to be the goal of churches and denominations today. this desire for an apparent feeling of unity seems to play itself out in denominations forcing external conformity to a creed/confession and a centralized authority. my contention is that this is not true unity at all but a mere worldly unity (like that seen in sacral societies).

what do you all think of this assessment? i would appreciate any comments/feedback on this thought about unity. thanks! 2 Weeks Ago 01:11 PM

I believe this is true. The absence of diversity is absurd; In John, Jesus says, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd (Jn 10.16 NIV ). And "they will never follow a stranger; in fact they will run away from him because they do not recognize a stranger's voice" (Jn 10.5 NIV). This is the difference of what is within the pale of orthodoxy and heterodoxy. The true believer will not be led astray if they are listening to his voice; yet logistically, there are many different churches that make up the body of believers with one shepherd—unity with diversity!

[Yoder]

I have great diversity in my church. You have tolerant calvinists, you have hyper calvinists, they have not brow beat me because I am hesitant to accept dispensationism as they present it (although some of it has merit) and we all get along together.

Does this make for a strong church? Yes. Why? Because as Paul writes in Corinthians, if you have the faith to move mountains and have not love, you are nothing.

I find it amazing that no one gets what Christ is saying to the church in Ephesus. They left their first love. They were strong on spotting fakes, they had strong doctorine and held fast to it. But they lost their first love. And how they got to that point I think is that it started with the fact that they didn't love each other.

Sure, they could spot heresy a mile away, they hated heresy, and that was great. But they didn't love.

In the gospels when Christ is talking about the sheep and the goats, what does he judge them on? What they did for the breathern. Why? Because we are representatives of Christ and when we do things for the represenatives of Christ, we do it for him.

It messures up with what John writes in I John.

I John 3:13-17 NKJV

13Do not marvel, my brethren, if the world hates you. 14We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love his brother abides in death. 15Whoever hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 16 By this we know love, because He laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. 17But whoever has this world's goods, and sees his brother in need, and shuts up his heart from him, how does the love of God abide in him?

I am not downing strong doctorine, I am not say sacrifice it for love. What I am saying is that it is important to do as disciple has said and to love each other in spite of what small differences are between us. That is the most important thing.

Without love we are nothing.

Yoder

[bgamall]

Amish Dave, if you are not permitted to teach the truth about dispensationalist evil then you cannot fellowship in that church. You are in bondage to a false leadership who won't let you communicate your views. Like I say, the 1646 First London confession is the only true church confession that I could fellowship with. There may be others similar in other times. But this is the only one I know about. There are many who lump the 1646 confession with the 1689 confession, but that is absolutely false.

I do not see any 1646 churches operating today. Jon Zens and John Reisinger are wishy washy and do not hold to the 1646 view that the law preachers are false preachers. There are really no true churches that I know about, and I have looked.

Jesus said that He would return to little faith. That is how it is today.

[r4mdh2o]

BGAMALL, RU related to Harold Camping?