Just wondering

[The Parson]

You sir are making presuppositions. The is no Calvinistic Landmarker in me. I am a Missionary Baptist apologist, and a church historian myself.

 

[JM]

You sir are making presuppositions. The is no Calvinistic Landmarker in me. I am a Missionary Baptist apologist, and a church historian myself.

If Spurgeon was correct about Anaptists and Baptists sharing the same origins than he is correct about Calvinism being the Gospel. Or will you admit that even the best of preachers are sinners, can make mistakes and should be corrected?

“It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.”

And:

"If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.”

Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ—the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here.

I have my own private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else.

I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor." Charles Spurgeon, A Defense of Calvinism

 

[The Parson]

If Spurgeon was correct about Anaptists and Baptists sharing the same origins than he is correct about Calvinism being the Gospel. Or will you admit that even the best of preachers are sinners, can make mistakes and should be corrected?

You seem more tenacious about making incorrect assumptions, than the truth of history. I've only seen such tenaciousness in papists over the subject. Seeing your protestant label on your forum ID makes me think that your arguments are more spurious than informative, as most of the ones I've quoted think the protestants are still the daughters of the great harlot.. In southern terms, you don't really have a dog in this race. Or do you... So if not, why then would you worry about what an ignorant Baptist would think. But yes, Spurgeon was a Calvinist, which is a doctrine I find repugnant. But his doctrine isn't the subject. His understanding of history is what I am interested in.

So then again, do you have a dog in this race? Or do you not?

 

[JM]

You seem more tenacious about making incorrect assumptions,

Modern scholars reject your opinions so you reject modern research, fine. But pointing to heretics and calling them 'Baptists' is just silly.

than the truth of history.

It's time to read a modern work that takes into consideration the traditions you are promoting.

I've only seen such tenaciousness in papists over the subject.

Now you're attempting to label me Roman Catholic because you can't deal. Weak.

Seeing your protestant label on your forum ID makes me think that your arguments are more spurious than informative,

You claim to be a historian but deny modern scholarship for tradition. Who's the 'paptist?'

as most of the ones I've quoted think the protestants are still the daughters of the great harlot.. In southern terms, you don't really have a dog in this race.

"Protestants" "daughters of the harlot?" . We need Doctor Who to pull you from that historical vacuum you live in.

Or do you... So if not, why then would you worry about what an ignorant Baptist would think.

Because, as they say, that dog don't hunt. You are claiming every heretic in church history as a Baptist. Anyone, Baptist or not, should have a problem with that.

But yes, Spurgeon was a Calvinist, which is a doctrine I find repugnant. But his doctrine isn't the subject. His understanding of history is what I am interested in.

If you are interested in Spurgeon's understanding of history please note, “It is no novelty, then, that I am preaching; no new doctrine. I love to proclaim these strong old doctrines, that are called by nickname Calvinism, but which are surely and verily the revealed truth of God as it is in Christ Jesus.

So then again, do you have a dog in this race? Or do you not?

Are you interested in truth of just your tradition because that dog named tradition...don't hunt.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[The Parson]

Alright then, we gonna take them dogs rabbit hunting, are we? Sure, I'll go there. And yes, I do reject the more recent modern historical references. Why, because this historically is when the waters started getting muddy.

Here's some ground rules if you want to continue on this rabbit trail with me. Otherwise we can end it here. I will keep my responses to no more than 5 or 6 paragraphs and I will reference my sources. And, seeing that I will more than likely discount any "post 19th century", or at least up to the first part of the 20th century sources; 1920's, etc., until the very end of the discussion... Frankly, I do not trust any past this point, because this is when the rabid history revisions really started.

Will you agree to do the same? Otherwise, we're done...

 

[OzSpen]

Has the distinction between being an Anabaptist, or a Baptist become such that the board would want to have each as a separate group? After all, we Baptists were first called Anabaptist's before we dropped the Ana (meaning to repeat or do again) from the name.

The Parson,

In my understanding from Christian history, 'Ana' meant 're'. These Christians had been baptised as infants but then they received a 'dunking' under the water when saved and so were 're baptised'.

It was part of the Radical Reformation and is understood as an offshoot of the Reformation.

Approximately 4 million Anabaptists live in the world today with adherents scattered across all inhabited continents. In addition to a number of minor Anabaptist groups, the most numerous include the Mennonites at 2.1 million, the German Baptists at 1.5 million, the Amish at 300,000 and the Hutterites at 50,000.[not verified in body] In the 21st century, there are large cultural differences between assimilated Anabaptists, who do not differ much from evangelicals or mainline Protestants, and traditional groups like the Amish, the Old Colony Mennonites, the Old Order Mennonites, the Hutterites and the Old German Baptist Brethren (source: Wikipedia 2020. s.v. Anabaptism).​

I'm an MA graduate of an Anabaptist seminary, Ashland Theological Seminary, Ashland OH. This is run by the Anabaptist Brethren Church. It's in the midst of an Old Order Amish community where there were hitching rails at the local supermarket for the Amish horses (and buggies). I'm not an Anabaptist but am ordained by the Christian & Missionary Alliance of Australia, which does not support infant baptism. The C&MA has many teachings similar to Baptists, but with a strong missionary emphasis.

A key doctrine of the Anabaptist churches is their rejection of infant baptism.

Oz