Baptist History

MrJG · Jun 3, 2009

I am one of those Baptists that believe that we can trace the origins of our denomination back to the original church in Jerusalem started by the apostles. I believe that there has always been a faithful body of believers that have been Baptistic in beliefs since the time of this NT church.

I know that some or most other denominations would disagree, and even some Baptists would disagree; nonetheless, I am not alone in my belief.

I was thumbing through the May/June 2009 issue of The Baptist Vision published by Temple Baptist Church in Powell, Tenn. In this issue (on page 10-11), was an article about the above mentioned belief. There were several quotes of men from various denominations about the issue of whether or not the Baptist church is the descendant of the NT church. I would just like to share a few of those and get some feedback on what others think.

"I have no question in my own mind that there has been a historical succession of the Baptists from the days of Christ to the present time." Dr. John T. Christian (Baptist)

"The Baptists can trace their origin to Apostolic times and can produce unequivocal testimony of their existence in every century down to the present time." Alexander Campbell (Founder of the Church of Christ)

"I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as A.D. 100, though without doubt there were Baptists then as all Christians were then Baptists." John C. Ridpath (Methodist)

"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

I could continue to quote more, but for the sake of time I shall not. I personally enjoyed this article and hope that you enjoyed these few quotes from it.

DeaconDean · Jun 3, 2009

DD2008 · Jun 3, 2009

I was taught the trail of blood as history in my Church when I was a kid. It was devestating to my trust when later in college I learned it isn't true.

I thought the trail of blood had been abandoned as legitimate curriculum.

LiturgyInDMinor · Jun 3, 2009

It has.
Some Landmarkists still teach it though.
Baptist successionism is untenable.
For example:
There is historic evidence to suggest that the early christian church was liturgical in form of worship. That doesn't show any baptistic tendency does it?
Carroll wrote "The trail of blood" to 1.) refute the Catholic church about everything, and 2.) batptists of the time were truely having an identity crisis of sorts worldwide.

Thanks for listening.

Hentenza · Jun 3, 2009

I have delved into this topic very little because it really doesn't have much impact on whether I continue to be Baptist or not. The church depicted in scripture is, in my opinion, the Baptist church. That's enough for me.

sealacamp · Jun 3, 2009

I was taught the trail of blood as history in my Church when I was a kid. It was devestating to my trust when later in college I learned it isn't true.

Just how is this disproven?

S

DD2008 · Jun 3, 2009

sealacamp said:
Just how is this disproven?

S

There isn't any evidence for it. Thus academia believes it isn't a historically correct position.

Baptist successionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

mlqurgw · Jun 3, 2009

The three views of Baptist succession or perpetuity are:
1. Spiritual Kinship. This is the view that modern Baptists are the spiritual descendants of the Novatians, Paulacians, and Waldenses mentioned earlier. Even though those groups did not call themselves Baptist they did reject infant baptism and allowed baptism of believers only, by immersion.
2. Landmark view or chain link succession. This view maintains that a succession of Baptist churches can be traced back to the apostles and that the only valid administration of baptism must be done in a church which takes this view of Baptist history. Both the spiritual kinship and landmark views maintain that the Baptist church is the only true New Testament church and we believe that it is.
3. Protestant Baptist view. This view was first introduced by William Whitsett, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in about 1898. It maintains that the Baptists began in England about 1640 under Smith and Helwys. It is adhered to by most Baptist and interdenominational schools, and its acceptance necessarily leads to the opinion that the Baptists are an offshoot of the Reformation and English separatists. We reject that view.
Baptist History Notes

I have done quite a bit of study on the subject many years ago and hold to the spiritual kinship view. If you can find it Cook's Baptist History is the best. I do have several volumes of Baptist History by different authors including the Trail Of Blood. The problem with Landmark views of Baptist history is that it makes only the Landmark churches true Baptist churches. They accept no baptism from any but those who are Landmark and it also skews their view of the church itself.

arunma · Jun 3, 2009

DD2008 said:
I was taught the trail of blood as history in my Church when I was a kid. It was devestating to my trust when later in college I learned it isn't true.

I thought the trail of blood had been abandoned as legitimate curriculum.

Churches should really stop setting themselves up as enemies of the truth. I often wonder why some churches waste their time and resources trying to teach doctrines that run contrary to the truth and that aren't even tangentially related to the Gospel. It encourages lying and anti-intellectualism. These things do nothing but encourage apostasy.

Blood-washed Baptist: I hope you don't take what I've said above as offensive, because this isn't my intent. However, the view that you are proposing is historically indefensible, and I don't think this is very healthy from a spiritual standpoint.

DeaconDean · Jun 3, 2009

Ahhhhh...Landmarkers, don't ya just love 'em.

I was wondering when the "Trail of Blood" would come into play.

God Bless

Till all are one.

sealacamp · Jun 4, 2009

There isn't any evidence for it.

Well if you were dismayed by that it is a bit disturbing. Their anti-evidence is not very substantial but the holy spirit, who leads into all truth, can help you see what God knows to be true and right.

You know there isn't any evidence to "prove" evolution as the beginning of all life yet those same people who don't have any evidence against Baptist origins believe it to be true. So it is taken on faith and apparently it is their faith that binds them and doesn't set them free. A faith that binds isn't a very good faith from my perspective. You may do as you see fit but I would warn against much of what academia teaches because it is false and misleading. God is the great teacher and it is He to whom we look for wisdom, understanding, and education.

Sealacamp

MrJG · Jun 4, 2009

DeaconDean said:
nm

Dean, I already saw what you first posted, so why remove it? I would like to make it very clear that I am not a Landmarker. I do not believe that only Baptists can go to heaven.

NoRaptureBaptist said:
It has.
Some Landmarkists still teach it though.
Baptist successionism is untenable.
For example:
There is historic evidence to suggest that the early christian church was liturgical in form of worship. That doesn't show any baptistic tendency does it?
Carroll wrote "The trail of blood" to 1.) refute the Catholic church about everything, and 2.) batptists of the time were truely having an identity crisis of sorts worldwide.

NRB, I am not talking about the way in which they worshiped and the way in which we worship, I am talking about beliefs. In that way, modern day Baptists are directly related to the first churches because our beliefs and convictions about Biblical doctrine and the running of the church are very similar.

mlqurgw said:
The three views of Baptist succession or perpetuity are:
1. Spiritual Kinship. This is the view that modern Baptists are the spiritual descendants of the Novatians, Paulacians, and Waldenses mentioned earlier. Even though those groups did not call themselves Baptist they did reject infant baptism and allowed baptism of believers only, by immersion.
2. Landmark view or chain link succession. This view maintains that a succession of Baptist churches can be traced back to the apostles and that the only valid administration of baptism must be done in a church which takes this view of Baptist history. Both the spiritual kinship and landmark views maintain that the Baptist church is the only true New Testament church and we believe that it is.
3. Protestant Baptist view. This view was first introduced by William Whitsett, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in about 1898. It maintains that the Baptists began in England about 1640 under Smith and Helwys. It is adhered to by most Baptist and interdenominational schools, and its acceptance necessarily leads to the opinion that the Baptists are an offshoot of the Reformation and English separatists. We reject that view.
Baptist History Notes

I have done quite a bit of study on the subject many years ago and hold to the spiritual kinship view. If you can find it Cook's Baptist History is the best. I do have several volumes of Baptist History by different authors including the Trail Of Blood. The problem with Landmark views of Baptist history is that it makes only the Landmark churches true Baptist churches. They accept no baptism from any but those who are Landmark and it also skews their view of the church itself.

I heartily agree with the position that mlqurgw takes. I do not believe that we can look back through time and find Baptist churches going all the way back to the apostles, but I do believe that there has always been a faithful remnant of believers who were Baptistic in nature and this can be traced back to the first churches. I also believe as the quote from my first post that all the Christians back then were Baptistic in belief until polluted by other "denominations."

arunma said:
Churches should really stop setting themselves up as enemies of the truth. I often wonder why some churches waste their time and resources trying to teach doctrines that run contrary to the truth and that aren't even tangentially related to the Gospel. It encourages lying and anti-intellectualism. These things do nothing but encourage apostasy.

Blood-washed Baptist: I hope you don't take what I've said above as offensive, because this isn't my intent. However, the view that you are proposing is historically indefensible, and I don't think this is very healthy from a spiritual standpoint.

I could not disagree more. To say that I believe that the original churches were Baptistic in nature is hardly a waste of time and hardly runs contrary to the truth. Also, it is related to the gospel, because we have other churches out there saying that they are the true "universal church" and pulling people in because it gives them an air of legitimacy. I am not saying that I believe the way I do just because another church claims to be the "true church," what I am saying is that I as a Baptist am confident in the belief that I am following the same teachings as the original churches. This is more than tangentially related to the gospel, because if you don't believe that you as a Baptist hold the same beliefs as the early churches, then maybe you should consider switching denominations.

I do not take offense, because I know that everyone has the right to be wrong if they want to.

I do not believe as stated above that this is a spiritually damaging pursuit or belief, but on the contrary reaffirms my conviction that I as a Baptist am following as close to Biblical and early church teachings as possible.

the particular baptist · Jun 4, 2009

Blood-washed Baptist said:
I do not believe as stated above that this is a spiritually damaging pursuit or belief, but on the contrary reaffirms my conviction that I as a Baptist am following as close to Biblical and early church teachings as possible.

My position is Spiritual Kinship as well, but if you promise not to take offense id like to pose a question. If you say that you are in pursuit of following as closely to the early church as possible why would you not pursue their understanding and conviction of Soteriology as well ? They were all Monergists in Soteriology. Pastor Steven Lawson did extensive research on the early church and church pastors in the first few centuries and compiled his finidings in his book, Foundations Of Grace; A Long Line Of Godly Men. None held to or practiced altar calls. In fact, altar calls were put on the map by Finney a mere less than two centuries ago. Have you ever wondered how people were born again before altar calls ? They did not practice decisionism regeneration either. Here is a video sermon of Paul Washer on the subject.

All that being said, being a Historical Baptist is more than church government and immersion. There are many denoms that share the local church view and baptism by immersion, but their not baptist.

MrJG · Jun 4, 2009

thefivesolas said:
My position is Spiritual Kinship as well, but if you promise not to take offense id like to pose a question. If you say that you are in pursuit of following as closely to the early church as possible why would you not pursue their understanding and conviction of Soteriology as well ? They were all Monergists in Soteriology. Pastor Steven Lawson did extensive research on the early church and church pastors in the first few centuries and compiled his finidings in his book, Foundations Of Grace; A Long Line Of Godly Men. None held to or practiced altar calls. In fact, altar calls were put on the map by Finney a mere less than two centuries ago. Have you ever wondered how people were born again before altar calls ? They did not practice decisionism regeneration either. Here is a video sermon of Paul Washer on the subject.

All that being said, being a Historical Baptist is more than church government and immersion. There are many denoms that share the local church view and baptism by immersion, but their not baptist.

I won't debate the subject of monergism in this forum because it would take far too long, and also (I will admit) I am still studying it and do not fully understand all the content of this belief.

I will, however, briefly declare my position on altar calls. No, it is not mentioned in the Bible, but I do believe that it helps to solidify decisions made by those who go forward. I believe that people can get saved or make decisions for God just as easily in their pews as they can at the altar, but that an altar decision will have more "sticking power" (at least it does for me). I do not have time to watch the Washer video, but when I have a chance I will watch it.

arunma · Jun 4, 2009

Blood-washed Baptist said:
I could not disagree more. To say that I believe that the original churches were Baptistic in nature is hardly a waste of time and hardly runs contrary to the truth.

I think it does run contrary to the truth. The "evidence" put forth by the Landmark crowd is not evidence at all. They make statements without supporting them with primary sources. Do you know of any primary sources which attest to churches that were Baptistic in the way that you say they were? You've cited many books, perhaps you should reference them and see if they cite primary sources. If your belief is true, then it can withstand your own scrutiny.

The truth is that the early churches got their fair share of things wrong. The early church was not strictly paedobaptist. They also baptized people who were near death. The idea was that you can sin all you want, and then wash away your sin immediately prior to death. St. Augustine criticized this practice in his Confessions. Emperor Constantine was also baptized shortly before his death. Such a practice smacks of the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but it's not paedobaptism.

Certainly there were credobaptists in the church. If I'm not mistaken, Tertullian was one of them. The truth is that there were a lot of ideas floating around in the early church, and people didn't make dividing lines on the basis of views on baptism.

Blood-washed Baptist said:
Also, it is related to the gospel, because we have other churches out there saying that they are the true "universal church" and pulling people in because it gives them an air of legitimacy. I am not saying that I believe the way I do just because another church claims to be the "true church," what I am saying is that I as a Baptist am confident in the belief that I am following the same teachings as the original churches.

My friend, I am about as anti-Catholic as they come. I hate churches that teach false doctrine. But I urge you to not use misinformation just because it happens to refute Catholic teachings. Ask yourself what is meant by the statement, "As a Baptist...the belief that I am following is the same teaching as the original churches." Your false assumption is that the original churches had a unified body of teaching. The church has never been perfectly unified in teaching. Baptist churches today are divided over doctrine. Likewise, the early church was divided. This doesn't mean we can't all have a healthy communion with one another, but the idea that the early church had a unified body of doctrine is quite naive. The New Testament hadn't even been fully circulated and accepted in the churches of the ancient world until the fourth century, as evidenced by the fact that the first mention of a complete canon is in St. Athanasius' Festal Epistle of 367. This doesn't contradict the authority of Scripture, and I'm certain that many churches had complete Bibles before then, but it goes to show that the idea of a single unified church with a common body of doctrine is quite wrong.

Blood-washed Baptist said:
This is more than tangentially related to the gospel, because if you don't believe that you as a Baptist hold the same beliefs as the early churches, then maybe you should consider switching denominations.

I think most people who call themselves Baptists understand that our connection to the apostles comes through Scripture and not a denomination. I've been in a non-Baptist denomination before (the PCA), and my current church is affiliated with the SBC, which doesn't hold to a belief in Baptist successionism. Christians can be quite happy in any denomination that believes in the authority of Scripture, because that is how we trace our faith back to the Apostles.

Blood-washed Baptist said:
I do not take offense, because I know that everyone has the right to be wrong if they want to.

I think that statements like these are unhelpful and only serve to deflect from the issue of truth and falsehood. Wouldn't you agree?

Blood-washed Baptist said:
I do not believe as stated above that this is a spiritually damaging pursuit or belief, but on the contrary reaffirms my conviction that I as a Baptist am following as close to Biblical and early church teachings as possible.

I can think of a few ill effects of this doctrine.

It alienates Christians from other denominations. There are quite a few denominations and networks of churches out there that believe Scripture and which are discarded by your doctrine as though they were apostate.
It encourages an anti-intellectualism in the church, as well as a distrust of academia. Is there falsehood in academia? Certainly, just as there is falsehood within the church. It's a fallen world. But a distrust of academia reflects a fear of knowledge, and discourages people from thinking for themselves. It encourages them to blindly swallow whatever people serve them. This is very similar to what goes on in Roman Catholicism
It encourages apostasy. Not all people are stupid. They know that the things they learn from rigorous academic scholarship aren't all lies invented by Satan. When confronted with the staggering volume of evidence against Baptist successionism (or many other strange and false teachngs out there), people will be forced to either distrust their own senses, or reject the teachings of their church. It's a tragedy when a person can't trust his own church, and unfortunately many people reject the faith altogether because they generalize the behavior of abberant churches.

I encourage you to test your belief against the facts. I don't think it can withstand them.

ReformedChapin · Jun 4, 2009

The truth is that the early churches got their fair share of things wrong. The early church was not strictly paedobaptist. They also baptized people who were near death. The idea was that you can sin all you want, and then wash away your sin immediately prior to death. St. Augustine criticized this practice in his Confessions. Emperor Constantine was also baptized shortly before his death. Such a practice smacks of the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but it's not paedobaptism.

Depends what you mean by paedobaptism, it's very close to the Lutheran form of baptism although not all there. Lutherans believe that like faith God use baptism as a means of grace which can also be labeled baptismal regeneration in a paedobaptist form.

Certainly there were credobaptists in the church. If I'm not mistaken, Tertullian was one of them. The truth is that there were a lot of ideas floating around in the early church, and people didn't make dividing lines on the basis of views on baptism.

Tretullian believed in baptismal regeneration in it's credobaptist form.

Right now the main reason why I am Presbyterian over a RB is because the lack of evidance showing that Church History has supported Credobaptism at all. Yes as you mentioned before paedobaptism has taken several forms but it has been consitantly upheald by church history over and over. Not to mention I never saw any of the reformers having any major problems with it infact they adopted to their theology but that's for us calvinists.

sealacamp · Jun 4, 2009

Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. This promise is to you, and to your children, and even to the Gentiles all who have been called by the Lord our God.” Then Peter continued preaching for a long time, strongly urging all his listeners, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation!” Those who believed what Peter said were baptized and added to the church that day—about 3,000 in all.

As they rode along, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look! There’s some water! Why can’t I be baptized?” He ordered the carriage to stop, and they went down into the water, and Philip baptized him.

Then Peter asked, “Can anyone object to their being baptized, now that they have received the Holy Spirit just as we did?” So he gave orders for them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, and everyone in his household believed in the Lord. Many others in Corinth also heard Paul, became believers, and were baptized.

As soon as they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then when Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke in other tongues and prophesied.

Then Jesus went from Galilee to the Jordan River to be baptized by John. But John tried to talk him out of it. “I am the one who needs to be baptized by you,” he said, “so why are you coming to me?” But Jesus said, “It should be done, for we must carry out all that God requires.” So John agreed to baptize him.
After his baptism, as Jesus came up out of the water, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and settling on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my dearly loved Son, who brings me great joy.”

Sealacamp

LiturgyInDMinor · Jun 4, 2009

Are you proposing baptismal regeneration here Sealacamp? Not sure where you're heading with those verses.

MrJG · Jun 4, 2009

arunma said:
I think it does run contrary to the truth. The "evidence" put forth by the Landmark crowd is not evidence at all. They make statements without supporting them with primary sources. Do you know of any primary sources which attest to churches that were Baptistic in the way that you say they were? You've cited many books, perhaps you should reference them and see if they cite primary sources. If your belief is true, then it can withstand your own scrutiny.

Actually, the only thing I have referenced is the article in the OP of which, I only took several quotes from various men commenting on the subject. It was others who referenced books such as The Trial of Blood.

The truth is that the early churches got their fair share of things wrong. The early church was not strictly paedobaptist. They also baptized people who were near death. The idea was that you can sin all you want, and then wash away your sin immediately prior to death. St. Augustine criticized this practice in his Confessions. Emperor Constantine was also baptized shortly before his death. Such a practice smacks of the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but it's not paedobaptism.

Yes, the early churches in 300s through. I; however, am not talking about those churches who were being corrupted by Pagan practices, but rather the churches started by the apostles (i.e. Peter, James, Paul, etc). We have for us clearly defined in the NT what these churches practiced (and not just on Baptism, but on many other doctrines). What I am pointing out is that the Baptist denomination is the closest to the original churches because we follow the teachings of the Bible the closest. I need not reference any other book save the Bible.

Certainly there were credobaptists in the church. If I'm not mistaken, Tertullian was one of them. The truth is that there were a lot of ideas floating around in the early church, and people didn't make dividing lines on the basis of views on baptism.

Do you honestly think that Baptismal beliefs are the only reasons that I am a Baptist? The Baptist belief about baptism is only one thing among many my friend.

My friend, I am about as anti-Catholic as they come. I hate churches that teach false doctrine. But I urge you to not use misinformation just because it happens to refute Catholic teachings. Ask yourself what is meant by the statement, "As a Baptist...the belief that I am following is the same teaching as the original churches." Your false assumption is that the original churches had a unified body of teaching. The church has never been perfectly unified in teaching. Baptist churches today are divided over doctrine. Likewise, the early church was divided. This doesn't mean we can't all have a healthy communion with one another, but the idea that the early church had a unified body of doctrine is quite naive. The New Testament hadn't even been fully circulated and accepted in the churches of the ancient world until the fourth century, as evidenced by the fact that the first mention of a complete canon is in St. Athanasius' Festal Epistle of 367. This doesn't contradict the authority of Scripture, and I'm certain that many churches had complete Bibles before then, but it goes to show that the idea of a single unified church with a common body of doctrine is quite wrong.

Please see the post above where I said that I do not hold these beliefs simply to refute the beliefs of the RCC. The churches founded by the apostles had more common teachings than different. The church is what it is because we are what we are, so it will never be perfect; but it was the closest to teaching the way Christ wanted it to be at the beginning. This is what I say we as Baptists are following. Granted, we are not 100% or maybe even 95% the same as those churches, because there are still a lot of mysteries in the Bible.

I think most people who call themselves Baptists understand that our connection to the apostles comes through Scripture and not a denomination. I've been in a non-Baptist denomination before (the PCA), and my current church is affiliated with the SBC, which doesn't hold to a belief in Baptist successionism. Christians can be quite happy in any denomination that believes in the authority of Scripture, because that is how we trace our faith back to the Apostles.

This is basically what I am trying to say, but you are jumping to conclusions too fast. I am saying that we are connected by beliefs (ie Scriptural teaching). The connection with the Baptist denomination is that we try to follow the Bible as close as possible.

I think that statements like these are unhelpful and only serve to deflect from the issue of truth and falsehood. Wouldn't you agree?

Statements like these help keep the conversation light unless someone woke up no the wrong side of the bed this morning.

I can think of a few ill effects of this doctrine.

It alienates Christians from other denominations. There are quite a few denominations and networks of churches out there that believe Scripture and which are discarded by your doctrine as though they were apostate. Please enlighten me as to when I said only Baptists go to heaven.

It encourages an anti-intellectualism in the church, as well as a distrust of academia. Is there falsehood in academia? Certainly, just as there is falsehood within the church. It's a fallen world. But a distrust of academia reflects a fear of knowledge, and discourages people from thinking for themselves. It encourages them to blindly swallow whatever people serve them. This is very similar to what goes on in Roman Catholicism How am I "distrusting academia" by saying that I believe we as Baptists believe pretty close to the same as the churches founded at the beginning of Christianity?

It encourages apostasy. Not all people are stupid. They know that the things they learn from rigorous academic scholarship aren't all lies invented by Satan. When confronted with the staggering volume of evidence against Baptist successionism [which you have yet to produce] (or many other strange and false teachngs out there), people will be forced to either distrust their own senses, or reject the teachings of their church. It's a tragedy when a person can't trust his own church, and unfortunately many people reject the faith altogether because they generalize the behavior of abberant churches.

I encourage you to test your belief against the facts. I don't think it can withstand them.

Need I say more?

LiturgyInDMinor · Jun 4, 2009

Yes...say more brother. Justify your statements about worship and such...HOW are baptist churches closest to the old NT churches?
Doctrinally there are many other churches/denoms that hold up just as well.
Worship? It is documented that the early church, before the year 100 worshiped semi liturgically.
Am I missing something?

Baptist History

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Well-Known Member

Celtic Rite Old Catholic Church

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Flaming Calvinist

γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

Well-Known Member

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

pactum serva

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

Flaming Calvinist

Chapin = Guatemalan

Well-Known Member

Celtic Rite Old Catholic Church

Better to be quiet and not prove anyone's theory

Celtic Rite Old Catholic Church

Similar threads