Baptists 400 year birthday?

MrJG · #21 30th October 2009, 05:27 PM

I believe in the idea of a spiritual kinship between our modern day fundamental Baptist churches and the first churches founded in the book of Acts.

I would like to take this chance to remind everyone one of what Spurgeon said:
"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the Reformation; 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 lineup 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 conscience 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 government, and we will never make the church, although the queen, the despot over the consciences of men." C.H. Spurgeon

Vince53 · #22 31st October 2009, 12:04 AM

Courage, John DB. Many of America's largest churches are Baptist, but they don't have the word "Baptist" in their name. The title "Baptist" will come and go, and we were around long before anybody called us Baptists.

JohnDB · #23 1st November 2009, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Vince53

Courage, John DB. Many of America's largest churches are Baptist, but they don't have the word "Baptist" in their name. The title "Baptist" will come and go, and we were around long before anybody called us Baptists.

You are correct of course...

God has always preserved a "remnant". Even if and when the tree and stump are burned level with the ground. But it used to be nice to know instantly where to find people...now it is more like a peck and hunt for a silver pin amongst the chrome ones.

Isn't it funny how we get accused of all kinds of ridiculous things like Calvinistic, Arminian, or having a lack of theology...all of them doing the accusing having no idea of how insulting and belittling they are being.

Of course all of those theology groups in themselves wish to take over...and they may one day take the name...but they won't get us...we don't go along with it.

Such a shame too that all of the coordinated efforts of missions is going to disapear on the day that one of these groups win the name.

mlqurgw · #24 1st November 2009, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by JohnDB

You are correct of course...

God has always preserved a "remnant". Even if and when the tree and stump are burned level with the ground. But it used to be nice to know instantly where to find people...now it is more like a peck and hunt for a silver pin amongst the chrome ones.

Isn't it funny how we get accused of all kinds of ridiculous things like Calvinistic, Arminian, or having a lack of theology...all of them doing the accusing having no idea of how insulting and belittling they are being.

Of course all of those theology groups in themselves wish to take over...and they may one day take the name...but they won't get us...we don't go along with it.

Such a shame too that all of the coordinated efforts of missions is going to disapear on the day that one of these groups win the name.

Just so you know John almost all of the modern mission movements were started by Calvinists. William Carey, the first Baptist missionary, was a staunch Calvinist. Adroniram Judson, who spent many years in Burma as a missionary and lost nearly 2 whole families because of it, was a staunch Calvinist. C. H Spurgeon, who wasn't a missionary but is often called the Prince of Preachers for his evangelistic zeal, was a staunch Calvinist. Others could be mentioned but I think you get the point. So if you are referring to Calvinists taking over the name of Baptist, as seems to be your point, then missions would probably increase not decrease.

Vince53 · #25 1st November 2009, 08:46 PM

Living in Mexico, my wife and I are members of Community Bible Church in San Antonio, Texas, which we watch on the internet. They swear up and down that they are non-denominational. Their statement of faith, however, makes it clear that they are an independent Baptist church.

JohnDB · #26 2nd November 2009, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by mlqurgw

Just so you know John almost all of the modern mission movements were started by Calvinists. William Carey, the first Baptist missionary, was a staunch Calvinist. Adroniram Judson, who spent many years in Burma as a missionary and lost nearly 2 whole families because of it, was a staunch Calvinist. C. H Spurgeon, who wasn't a missionary but is often called the Prince of Preachers for his evangelistic zeal, was a staunch Calvinist. Others could be mentioned but I think you get the point. So if you are referring to Calvinists taking over the name of Baptist, as seems to be your point, then missions would probably increase not decrease.

Regardless of the beginnings...the vast majority of Baptists are neither Calvinist or Arminian. (a position Calvinists do not understand, Charismatics are ususally kind enough to listen to but not understand, and Arminians think is being too much into God)

But the Calvinists, Charismatics and Arminians do wish to take over...and that is what is sad.

But there is always hope for the independants and the Non-denoms. Can't wait till I am outta here.

Vince53 · #27 2nd November 2009, 01:50 PM

There was plenty of blame to go around for the American Civil War, and the Southern Baptist Convention acknowledged its share. While most US Baptists had repudiated slavery, white supremacy, and racism, Baptists in the South formed their own group that supported all three.

And when the shattered South lay in ruins, the Southern Baptist Convention started re-building. They trained their pastors to work secular jobs while pastoring small churches that sprang up everywhere. Holding strongly to the Bible, they provided hope to a defeated people.

Although strongly segregationist, they preached and taught against the racial hatred they had once espoused, and God blessed them. Over a period of decades, the Southern Baptist Convention became the second-largest denomination in the US. They were strongly fundamental, and of course, Satan had to do something about it.

Vince53 · #28 4th November 2009, 11:31 AM

Over time, unsaved people began assuming leadership positions in the Convention. They successfully installed unsaved professors in Southern Baptist colleges, who then strove to turn young preachers way from God's Word. After protesting unsuccessfully, some Baptists withdrew from the Convention and became independent Baptists.

Believing the same doctrines as the Convention, independent Baptists clung strongly to the Word of God, along with holy living. Unfortunately, they got attached to too many man-made rules that might have made sense when they began, but which became an increasing burden to them. But God blessed His Word, and the group grew rapidly.

Tzaousios · #29 4th November 2009, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by Vince53

Over time, unsaved people began assuming leadership positions in the Convention. They successfully installed unsaved professors in Southern Baptists college, who then strove to turn young preachers way from God's Word. After protesting unsuccessfully, some Baptists withdrew from the Convention and became independent Baptists.

Believing the same doctrines as the Convention, independent Baptists clung strongly to the Word of God, along with holy living. Unfortunately, they got attached to too many man-made rules that might have made sense when they began, but which became an increasing burden to them. But God blessed His Word, and the group grew rapidly.

This is an interesting assessment. I have a few questions for you based on the above assessment:

1. By what criteria are you distinguishing "unsaved" leaders and professors from saved leaders and professors?

2. Specifically, how did the "unsaved" leaders and professors turn young men away from the Word of God?

3. What were the specific doctrines of the Convention which you are saying should have been held to?

Vince53 · #30 4th November 2009, 01:14 PM

Good to hear from you, Tzaousios.

A college professor who does not believe the Word of God is not a born-again Christian, regardless of his religion.

John 8:47 He who is of God hears God's words; therefore you do not hear, because you are not of God."

Unsaved professors taught in the class room that the Bible is not true. Most professors taught otherwise, but in the spirit of compromise, the Convention felt that it needed some of both. This is one reason why the Convention was declining in membership at that time, even while independent Baptists were increasing.

I'm not sure what you mean by your third question. Independent Baptists and Southern Baptists believed the same doctrines. The problem was over the Convention's compromises, not the Convention's doctrine.