Truth, Trust, and Testimony

[PappaBear]

For those truly interested, factual evidence abounds supporting my post.  I challenge you to research for yourselves. 

For those blindly following such as Freebie, you have my pity.  Not my understanding, but my pity. 

 

[FSSL]

For those truly interested, factual evidence abounds supporting my post.  I challenge you to research for yourselves. 
For those blindly following such as Freebie, you have my pity.  Not my understanding, but my pity.

I thought you were against arrogance and elitism? "Blindly following?" That is unnecessary. Why diss other posters by suggesting that they haven't been thinking for themselves? You have lost all credibility in accusing Calvinists of arrogance. Apparently, arrogance is a bit more universal than you suggest.

Why not just defeat my points on their own merits?

I was trained in both Landmarkism (college) and English Separatist (seminary) view points. Landmarkism is just a Roman Catholic approach to prove that Baptists are the genuine group because they can trace their heritage back to John the Baptist. It is fanciful and is exactly what the Catholic church does to support their belief that their pope is genuine because he can be traced back to Peter.

Surely, if anyone wants to get a good understanding of Baptist History, here is a bibliography I put together:

My lessons: http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/historical-theology/baptist-history/

Successionist Views

• Armitage, Thomas. A History of the Baptists: Traced by their Vital Principles and Practices, From the Time of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ to the Year 1886. New York: Bryan, Taylor, and Co., 1887.
• Carroll, J. M. The Trail of Blood. Lexington, KY: Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, 1931.
• Cummins, David and E. Wayne Thompson. This Day in Baptist History. Vol. 1. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 1993.
• ————————. This Day in Baptist History. Vol. 2. Greenville, SC: Bob Jones University Press, 2000.
• Davis, A. A. The Baptist Story: Sermons on the Trail of Blood. Shelbyville, TN: 1999.
• Ford, S. H. The Origin of the Baptists. Texarkana: TX: Bogard Press, 1950.
• Orchard, G. H. A Concise History of Baptists. Texarkana:TX: Bogard Press, 1956.

English Separtist Views

• Haykin, Michael. Rediscovering our English Baptist Heritage: Kiffin, Knollys and Keach. Leeds, England: Reformation Today Trust, 1996.
• McBeth, H. Leon. The Baptist Heritage. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1987.
• Torbet, Robert. A History of the Baptists. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1950.
• Vedder, A Short History of the Baptists. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1907.

 

[Ransom]

For those truly interested, factual evidence abounds supporting my post.  I challenge you to research for yourselves. 

LOL. Yeah, OK, we'll do your homework for you.

*snort*

 

[PappaBear]

Why not just defeat my points on their own merits?

Okay, sure.

Ransom said:  "He's just invent'n stuff, Freebie!"

Freebie said:  "Yeah!  What Ransom said!"

[end quote]

Now, to defeat your points.

PappaBear said: "Nuh-uh!  Is too!!"

Deafeat your points?  What points?  You are attempting to change history and make it as if there are no Baptists except Calvy-baal Bappy's.  You ignore my acknowledgment that some Baptists are heretical.  The historical roots of Baptists run deep.  You seem unable to acknowledge that there are Baptists which do not agree with your Calvinist heresy. 

You can keep your tracing back to Peter, I like going to John the BAPTIST, myself. 

btw, how's the smoke and mirrors coming with hiding Ransom's lack of a testimony?  Do you at least acknowledge the historicity of believer's baptism as a Baptist trait?  How can a man be properly baptized if he has no "coming to faith" experience?  I know, that is not important to you Calvy's.  It's just a Baptist thing.

Why not just defeat my points on their own merits? My lessons: http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/historical-theology/baptist-history/

Like I said, worth what you are charging, maybe a little less. 

 

[PappaBear]

Well, tracking back to the Opening Post and the article...

The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest denomination of Baptists, according to my understanding.  If, as the Calvy-baal worshippers on this thread claim, Baptists have "historically" been Calvinist, then why this article?

Why should the largest Baptist denomination have a "Calvinism Advisory Committee"?  Shouldn't they already know their own history and assume that most Baptists among their denominational ranks are Calvinist?

Also, why should that Calvinist Advisory Committee find 11 contentious points between their own history and the "new Calvinism" infiltrating their ranks?  Should those have already been resolved by the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith in 1644?

 

[PappaBear]

You don't know the history of Baptists. Why don't you start with yourself and figure out why you are outside the historical Baptists before criticizing the SBCs?

You lie, again.  I do not believe it is that you do not know the history of Baptists, but that you consciously and willfully reject it. 

Vedder was one of the texts in one of my Baptist History courses, Torbet was another.  I have read most in your bibliography and more.  Many of those will at least acknowledge the truths of Baptist distinctives and heritage, many in your Landmark list even supporting them -- truths you have denied and improperly referenced as if they support you. 

I have also done a lot of stomping around Amish country.  You appear unaware that they are not only proud of their "Anabaptist" heritage, but have current meetings with Anabaptist labels on them.  I think it would stand you well to listen to some messages by Denny Kenaston, a former HAC student, who went that direction.  http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/viewcat.php?cid=253&min=40&orderby=titleA&show=20  In fact, I would recommend his message Theology Versus Anabaptist Reality to you especially.

Significantly for this thread, you have ignored the questions regarding why, if Baptists are historically so "reformed," would the Southern Baptists have to deal with the issue at this time?  You duck and dodge.  But we know why.  And they know why.  Criticizing SBC'ers?  I applaud them and point boldly to them as showing your misplaced faith in Calvin and his Catholic Institutes as your gods, which is NOT a view shared by the largest Baptist denomination today, nor the majority of Baptists in history. 

Btw ... since you are intent to define Baptists as only those who accepted the label through denominational instruments, do you believe Independents to be "Baptist"?  Would you recognize General Baptists or Regular Baptists or Six Principle Baptists as Baptists?

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Admin,
I'm no historian.  I would like to be, but I'm not.  I'm definitely punching above my weight getting into this with either of you.  That being said, I have read a good amount of Baptist history, and have done some research into anabaptist history.  I live in Amish country, and we have an anabaptist museum here, and it's fascinating.  The amish and mennonites definitely respect their anabaptist heritage. 

Now, whether swiss and german anabaptism directly ties to the english and american baptists, who knows?  What I think we do know is that while there were elements of the anabaptists that we definitely would have a problem with - and yet many of them were extremely close to baptists.  While I can't prove that the anabaptists are my spiritual grandfathers, I sure wouldn't mind finding out that they are and I'm quite comfortable going on in the dilusion.

Papabear,
Your argument about Calvinism in the history of the SBC makes no sense. It's like saying "Why have this conversation about liberalism, doesn't the early creeds of the baptists settle that?"  From what I've read, the SBC does have calvinist roots, but those roots were largely forgotten in the early 1900s. 

In my geusstimation, the reason there is a calvinist resurgence (and from what I've read, we are talking about maybe 30% of the SBC here) is because there is a calvinist upswing everywhere right now.  That's just the way the pendulum is swinging.  The reason it's swinging that way is because of how Biblically vapid preaching had become.  A little bit in that direction is a good thing, but there are going to be people who take it too far.

There may be 30% of Southern Baptists who consider themselves calvinists, but only a third of those would even consider themselves 5 point calvinists.  So the idea that hard core, old-school, 5 point covenantal calvinism is taking over the SBC is just fantasy. 

 

[FSSL]

You lie, again.

Your desperation is showing.

History is based on documentation. It is not based on one's wishes, hearsay or even what the beloved Christian prof told them...

He that tries to shoehorn the Unitarian, Servetus into the Baptist-fold, or claims Baptists find their beginnings among the papist and sacramentalist Donatists, that claims Baptists are anabaptists and that calvinism and Baptists is diametrically opposed... well, I must leave him to his own delusions.

If you cannot accept documented evidence, then pray tell, how in the world would I even be able to discuss with you how the Arminians stole the minds and hearts of Southern Baptists (IFBs, GARBC...)?

 

[FSSL]

While I can't prove that the anabaptists are my spiritual grandfathers, I sure wouldn't mind finding out that they are and I'm quite comfortable going on in the dilusion.

Simple... just read the title page to the Second London Baptist Confession. The earliest Baptists were trying to dispel the myth as early as 1644. (see picture)

I have alot in affinity with Presbyterians... however, it would be absurd to trace my Baptist roots to them. Same problem. Just because there are overlaps in common belief is NOT enough to trace a lineage.

PappaBear wants to trace the Baptist lineage to a number of heretical groups all on the basis of a mode of baptism. It is absurd and is not based on documented facts. ESPECIALLY when the framing documents of Baptists repel the notion.

Even the General Baptists had grave issues with anabaptism. After John Smyth and Thomas Helwys began the General Baptists, Smyth, in later years became a mennonite. This was a real problem. Helwys broke away and continued the General Baptists.

No matter how you want to view it... historical documentation from the very beginnings is that Baptists are not Anabaptists.

[attachment deleted by admin]

 

[rsc2a]

While I can't prove that the anabaptists are my spiritual grandfathers, I sure wouldn't mind finding out that they are and I'm quite comfortable going on in the dilusion.

Simple... just read the title page to the Second London Baptist Confession. The earliest Baptists were trying to dispel the myth as early as 1644. (see picture)

I have alot in affinity with Presbyterians... however, it would be absurd to trace my Baptist roots to them. Same problem. Just because there are overlaps in common belief is NOT enough to trace a lineage.

PappaBear wants to trace the Baptist lineage to a number of heretical groups all on the basis of a mode of baptism. It is absurd and is not based on documented facts. ESPECIALLY when the framing documents of Baptists repel the notion.

Yup. The earliest Baptists sprang from the English Separatist movement during the Catholic/Protestant wars that were then destroying England.

 

[FSSL]

Yup. The earliest Baptists sprang from the English Separatist movement during the Catholic/Protestant wars that were then destroying England.

I believe the reason this is not typically taught in Independent Fundamental Bible Colleges is that they would have to admit their historically Calvinistic beliefs.

 

[rsc2a]

Yup. The earliest Baptists sprang from the English Separatist movement during the Catholic/Protestant wars that were then destroying England.

I believe the reason this is not typically taught in Independent Fundamental Bible Colleges is that they would have to admit their historically Calvinistic beliefs.

And they'd have to admit that their roots were historically...

... ...

...Catholic!

 

[PappaBear]

History is based on documentation. It is not based on one's wishes, hearsay or even what the beloved Christian prof told them...

He that tries to shoehorn the Unitarian, Servetus into the Baptist-fold, or claims Baptists find their beginnings among the papist and sacramentalist Donatists, that claims Baptists are anabaptists and that calvinism and Baptists is diametrically opposed...

Neither is history based on Freebies ramblings. 

Modalism differs from Unitarianism by accepting the Christian doctrine that Jesus is fully God.

Servetus was a modalist.  Furthermore, he wrote books on the subject of Trinitarianism which show that he believed in modalism and the deity of Christ.  His own teachings, coupled with his final cry from the flames, is "documentation" enough.

How do you define a Baptist?  Again, you have ignored the pertinent questions.  The way you use the terms in this thread, the SBC should not be acknowledging 11 "tensions" between Calvinists and the historical beliefs of Baptists, especially the SBC.  If a Baptist is determined by a single confession (normally a Calvinist activity) how do you resolve those called "Baptists" and who identify themselves as such, but who are not confessional?  How do you deal with the large numbers of historical Baptists who are non-creedalists?  How about the Unitarian Baptists such as descended from Helwys and whose teachings would be anathema to you?  I thought so.  You ignore it and go on, repeatedly spewing your Calvinist-laced heresy and revisions to history.  You make a vain attempt at recreating Baptist History in a Calvinist image.

Vedder, Christiansen, Albert Newman, Graves or Torbet will not fully support your English Separatist theory of Baptist History, which is a relatively new invention.  Any general reading of Baptist works will confirm alliance with Anabaptists, Waldensians, etc.  A google search will reveal a lot of "tensions" in that regard, showing that the matter is not as settled as you try to claim.  Considering the article in the OP, consider the Whitsitt Affair where he was forced to resign from SBTS in 1899 for promoting ideas such as yours.  Our Southern Baptist brothers have a long experience of rejecting your altered history that tries to unilaterally redefine Baptists as only Calvinists.

 

[Ransom]

You can keep your tracing back to Peter, I like going to John the BAPTIST, myself. 

Pappa will be telling us that Jews are Baptists, next . . .

 

[FSSL]

You make a vain attempt at recreating Baptist History in a Calvinist image.

Since you have not even read the title page to the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith 1644, the revisionist history is all yours...

Vedder, Christiansen, Albert Newman, Graves or Torbet will not fully support your English Separatist theory of Baptist History, which is a relatively new invention.

If 1644 is relatively new... then how old are you?

Our Southern Baptist brothers have a long experience of rejecting your altered history that tries to unilaterally redefine Baptists as only Calvinists.

Your own history on this board shows that you are unable to properly represent my position. I have recognized the General Baptists (Arminians) and Particular Baptists (Calvinists). You are a hybrid that doesn't want to use the phrase "eternally secure" and at the same time uses a vague phrase that needs a long explanation because you don't think anyone can lose their salvation.

SBCs have a long history of Calvinists among them. They also have Arminians. The fight has been going on for a long time. Your attempts to reBaptize Servetus, Anabaptists have been noted.

 

[PappaBear]

Here is a good source for those truly interested in Baptist History instead of having it revised for them.

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

 

[pastorryanhayden]

Papabear
Kind of surprised you linked to that Calvi-Baal site. 

 

[PappaBear]

Just tell everyone... you are a Landmark Baptist. Why provide materials from only that perspective?

Trying to represent my position for me, again, eh?

Besides... none of the sources will tell you Servetus was a Baptist.

Those sources will tell you that the Anabaptists are part of Baptist Heritage.  Like the Donatists and Albigenses, and Regular Baptists, and Helwys, and Waldensians, et. al. are part of BAPTIST history.  I'll leave it to your baal-god, Calvin, to inform you that Servetus was of that hated Anabaptist group. 

http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/sacramentology/lee/anab_005.html

Calvin further observed253 that "Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists," also wrongly assumes that "infants...are unable to believe." To Servetus, for that reason, all infants still "lie under condemnation."

Replied Calvin: "Seeing it is certain that [covenantal] infants are blessed by Him [Christ], it follows that they are freed from death.... Servetus cannot show that by divine appointment several years must elapse before the new spiritual life begins. Paul's testimony is that...the children of believers are holy by supernatural grace....

"Servetus [himself] afterwards adds that no man becomes our brother, unless by the spirit of adoption -- which is only conferred by the hearing of faith." Calvin answered: "Who will presume from this, to give [or prescribe] the law to God -- and say that He may not ingraft infants into Christ by some other secret method" than by hearing the Word physically through one's ears?

Servetus, continued Calvin, "objects that Cornelius was baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit.... He objects that infants cannot be regarded as new men.... But what I have said again and again, I now repeat.... From non-age...God takes His own methods of regenerating."

In a letter to Servetus, Calvin made an even more pertinent remark. "We say that Christ extends His hand to the children of holy parents as soon as they are born or conceived ('simul ac nascitur') -- in order to liberate them from the general guilt of sin."254

Here we find something interesting, that I have said about you all along.  You hate Servetus and deny his Baptist roots based on his alleged heterodoxy.  Yet you follow a man who believes infants are saved by "some other secret method"?  Hmmmm....  Speaks volumes about your position, doesn't it?  Especially in light of your promotion of those on this board who lack a public testimony of coming to faith in Christ.  It greatly demonstrates how little historical Baptist doctrine means to you.

Given the above, which would you rather be identified with?  What Servetus represented of himself and his doctrines, or Calvin?  Want to go back to the question earlier in the thread about what is believed concerning the need of a conversion experience?

Frankly, I can allow as a Christian a man who is not quite there on the Trinity, but nonetheless accepts the Lord's Christhood (Sonship, Deity).  I have a harder time swallowing the idea that a hateful murderer of Anabaptists (Baptist forbears) and proclaimer of such heresy as Calvin's as a saved man.  But alas, since he teaches that some are saved without the word of God or confession, it also explains quite well your extreme hatred of the Bible and incessant labors to corrupt the word of God.

 

[PappaBear]

Papabear
Kind of surprised you linked to that Calvi-Baal site. 

Yep!  You noticed.  Wait until you get a load of what I just posted from reformed.org!

 

[Ransom]

I'll leave it to your baal-god, Calvin, to inform you that Servetus was of that hated Anabaptist group.

Big deal. Anabaptist mens "rebaptizer," and the label was given to anyone who preached the rebaptism of adults.

Next, you're going to want to claim the Anabaptist clowns who established a despotic theocracy in Munster as part of your "Baptist heritage," too. Hey, you can have 'em.

LOL!