- Joined
- Dec 14, 2012
- Messages
- 6,975
- Reaction score
- 104
- Points
- 63
Mayo or Mustard?Ransom said:prophet said:Aborigines, or White ?
Your point is equally absurd either way.
Anishinaabe
Mayo or Mustard?Ransom said:prophet said:Aborigines, or White ?
Your point is equally absurd either way.
Baptist Confessions maybe...Ransom said:prophet said:British Pocket.
Baptists are an English theological movement. There were more Baptists in England than anywhere else, for a long time.
Calling this a "pocket" is about as meaningful as calling the Australians living in Australia a "pocket." Meaning, not very.
prophet said:Mayo or Mustard?
Can you drive?Ransom said:prophet said:Mayo or Mustard?
Go home, prophet, you're drunk.
Ransom said:prophet said:British Pocket.
Baptists are an English theological movement. There were more Baptists in England than anywhere else, for a long time.
Calling this a "pocket" is about as meaningful as calling the Australians living in Australia a "pocket." Meaning, not very.
There was a county full of Baptists in the Netherlands, when the Pilgrims fled England, from the persecution of King James. They settled there among them, and after several years, were so affected by them, that half of the Plymouth Colony's original occupants had been Baptized by the time they left Holland.North said:Ransom said:prophet said:British Pocket.
Baptists are an English theological movement. There were more Baptists in England than anywhere else, for a long time.
Calling this a "pocket" is about as meaningful as calling the Australians living in Australia a "pocket." Meaning, not very.
That theory may have been formed due to the religious freedoms in England versus the rest of Europe since the Henry the 8th. The underground Baptists in the persecuted nations would not have caught the historian's eye with any major writings, events, buildings, etc.
Or a decent history book, like Armitage's or On Plymouthe Plantation, by Bradford...you know.rsc2a said:It's like I'm reading Trail of Blood or some such nonsense.
Armitage has too strong of a bib. page to not be taken seriously.admin said:prophet said:Or a decent history book, like Armitage's...rsc2a said:It's like I'm reading Trail of Blood or some such nonsense.
Anishinaabe
Armitage's error begat the Trail of Blood error.
The Bible colleges of the 1970s and 1980s pretty much taught that Baptists come from the Anabaptists. They learned all about John Smyth. They were told that Baptists always immersed. They were also taught that John Bunyan was a Baptist eventhough his church baptized infants and was Congregationalist.
A WHOLE lot of historical revisionism came through Armitage...
groupie said:
prophet said:[RIplinger] has too strong of a bib. page to not be taken seriously.
Armitage has many quotes, from various persons, and sources throughout, that seemingly validate his claims. Mostly, he is a historian.Ransom said:prophet said:[RIplinger] has too strong of a bib. page to not be taken seriously.
Made a quick change that I hope demonstrates the absurdity of "proof by poundage of footnotes."
prophet said:Armitage has many quotes, from various persons, and sources throughout, that seemingly validate his claims. Mostly, he is a historian.
Rips, on the other hand, is apparently heir to all things conspiratorial, and leaps over tall buildings of logic, at times. Hardly comparable.
ItinerantPreacher said:Exactly. And his name wasn't John the Methodist or John the Presbyterian or John the Episcopalian.ALAYMAN said:No reason to be ashamed of the name. John wasn't.
![]()
This'll prolly get me flamed lol.
admin said:Yep! There were two choices:
1) General Baptists who believed you could lose your salvation. That group died out in the early 1800s. Other groups revived their theology and are still known as General Baptists. Arminians.
2) Particular Baptists... called Particular because of their belief in limited atonement. Calvinists.