Are you a Baptist with a big B? Chuck certainly was.

[ALAYMAN]

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at thereformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men".--Spurgeon

 

[Izdaari]

The part about Baptists existing before Luther or Calvin is baloney.

 

[ALAYMAN]

The part about Baptists existing before Luther or Calvin is baloney.

Not in the sense that Chuck qualified it.

 

[Izdaari]

The part about Baptists existing before Luther or Calvin is baloney.

Not in the sense that Chuck qualified it.

Sure, and Izdaarians have existed in an unbroken line from the Apostles too. 

 

[brianb]

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at thereformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men".--Spurgeon

Sir Isaac Newton:    "The Baptists are the only body of known Christians that have never symbolized with Rome."

 

[Izdaari]

However, I totally agree with Spurgeon that the church should not associate itself with the state, and should always allow liberty of conscience.

 

[brianb]

The part about Baptists existing before Luther or Calvin is baloney.

Only if you can prove that one or more of the quotes on this page is baloney. Except for the Hosius quote - it seems farfetched to me - there was no group called baptists in 1524 or before that.  There were groups that were called anabaptists because they re-baptized Catholics.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Baptists-954/2008/6/Baptist-Beliefs-2.htm

 

[Izdaari]

The part about Baptists existing before Luther or Calvin is baloney.

Only if you can prove that one or more of the quotes on this page is baloney.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Baptists-954/2008/6/Baptist-Beliefs-2.htm

No. The claim that Baptists have existed in an unbroken line since the Apostles is contrary to accepted church history, and therefore it bears the burden of proof.

 

[ALAYMAN]

[quote author=Izdaari]
Sure, and Izdaarians have existed in an unbroken line from the Apostles too. 
[/quote]


Shazbot... nanu-nanu.

No. The claim that Baptists have existed in an unbroken line since the Apostles is contrary to accepted church history, and therefore it bears the burden of proof.

Whose version of "history" are you declaring to be authoritative and impeccable in the matter?

 

[Izdaari]

[quote author=Izdaari]
Sure, and Izdaarians have existed in an unbroken line from the Apostles too. 

Shazbot... nanu-nanu.

No. The claim that Baptists have existed in an unbroken line since the Apostles is contrary to accepted church history, and therefore it bears the burden of proof.

Whose version of "history" are you declaring to be authoritative and impeccable in the matter?
[/quote]

"Authoritative and impeccable" is more than I claimed. Accepted by the majority of professors in accredited seminaries will do. I've never heard anyone other than the Landmark nuts claim that Baptists are older than Luther or Calvin. I wouldn't call Spurgeon a nut, but he sure crawled out on a limb there.

 

[Izdaari]

Is this incorrect?

"Historians trace the earliest Baptist church back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[3] In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.[4] Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ's atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect. In 1638, Roger Williams established the first Baptist congregation in the North American colonies. In the mid-18th century, the First Great Awakening increased Baptist growth in both New England and the South.[5] The Second Great Awakening in the South in the early 19th century increased church membership, as did the preachers' lessening of support for abolition and manumission of slavery, which had been part of the 18th-century teachings. Baptist missionaries have spread their church to every continent.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

 

[brianb]

Is this incorrect?

"Historians trace the earliest Baptist church back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor.[3] In accordance with his reading of the New Testament, he rejected baptism of infants and instituted baptism only of believing adults.[4] Baptist practice spread to England, where the General Baptists considered Christ's atonement to extend to all people, while the Particular Baptists believed that it extended only to the elect. In 1638, Roger Williams established the first Baptist congregation in the North American colonies. In the mid-18th century, the First Great Awakening increased Baptist growth in both New England and the South.[5] The Second Great Awakening in the South in the early 19th century increased church membership, as did the preachers' lessening of support for abolition and manumission of slavery, which had been part of the 18th-century teachings. Baptist missionaries have spread their church to every continent.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

That is correct if you are referring to Baptists in name. We are not necessarily referring to Baptists in name here.  We are referring to Baptists who were Baptists in practice - some of them were heretics even by our standards but they would still be Baptist in practice or baptistic - if a church baptizes by immersion the non-Eastern Orthodox way (EOs baptize by immersion 3 times one for each person of the Trinity) that church is baptistic.

 

[OZZY]

The part about Baptists existing before Luther or Calvin is baloney.

Only if you can prove that one or more of the quotes on this page is baloney.
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Baptists-954/2008/6/Baptist-Beliefs-2.htm

No. The claim that Baptists have existed in an unbroken line since the Apostles is contrary to accepted church history, and therefore it bears the burden of proof.

By church history I take it you mean Chatholic Church history?Also I take it you believe the salvation by grace was non existence for 1200 years till the reformation?

 

 

[rsc2a]

We are referring to Baptists who were Baptists in practice - some of them were heretics even by our standards but they would still be Baptist in practice or baptistic...

hahahaha

You're lumping heretics in with Baptists and calling that truth?

- if a church baptizes by immersion the non-Eastern Orthodox way (EOs baptize by immersion 3 times one for each person of the Trinity) that church is baptistic.

Why is the Orthodox way any less correct?

 

[rsc2a]

By church history I take it you mean Chatholic Church history?

*whispers quietly*

Catholics are also Christians.

/whisper

Also I take it you believe the salvation by grace was non existence for 1200 years till the reformation?

They also believe in salvation by grace.

 

[Bob H]

By church history I take it you mean Chatholic Church history?

*whispers quietly*

Catholics are also Christians.

/whisper

Also I take it you believe the salvation by grace was non existence for 1200 years till the reformation?

They also believe in salvation by grace.

Council of Trent --> CANON 12:  "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed"

 

[rsc2a]

Council of Trent --> CANON 12:  "If any one shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ's sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified ... let him be accursed"

You don't like the book of James?

"Luther

 

[Bob H]

Are you a Baptist with a big B? Chuck certainly was.

Another term is Mountain goat baptist, that is, Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaptist 

 

[OZZY]

By church history I take it you mean Chatholic Church history?

*whispers quietly*

Catholics are also Christians.

/whisper

Also I take it you believe the salvation by grace was non existence for 1200 years till the reformation?

They also believe in salvation by grace.

They are? They do?

 

[Fresh Air]

The part about Baptists existing before Luther or Calvin is baloney.

hmmmmm.... Izdaari vs Spurgeon ...whom shall I choose? It is so difficult...