- Jun 26, 2004
- 17,362
- 3,629
- Country
- Canada
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- CA-Others
A very thin veneer of scholarship, once again...
This in no way minimizes the work PREVIOUSLY completed by Particular Baptists as I have already posted. It was the Particular Baptist that held all of the marks of the modern Baptist church. The Arminians adopted PB theology limiting the atonement in power instead of scoop.
The Free Will Baptists used Particular Baptists works to support their biblical view of full immersion. The Bible is always first for Particular Baptist. As Carl Trueman notes:
All Christians engage in confessional synthesis; the difference is simply whether one adheres to a public confession, subject to public scrutiny, or to a private confession that is, by its very nature, immune to such examination.
I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.
The modern church in general has failed on this point. We have borrowed from Post Modern society in abandoning confessionalism.
The PB's amended their Confession to include a doctrine for the sake of unity, that did not touch on the atonement or the idea of libertarian free will, but was believed by PB's from the beginning. To claim they did so to "become more like the Arminians" is a loose play on facts. The Confession was amended and not changed to include the laying on of hands.
Thomas Helwys (author of the 1611 Confession) and John Smyth (who is often claimed to be a Baptist was really Anabaptist) were baptistic but did not believe in immersion. They poured or sprinkled. The Particular or "Reformed" Baptists rejected Helwys/Smyth's beliefs about Arminianism and baptism by 1630's, going as far as to demand the Free Will Baptists adhere to immersion and get properly baptized. (see Hercules Collins, 1691 and Did They Dip? and Baptist History Vindicated by John Christian) It can be demonstrated from history to any willing student that Helwys' theology, and that of his 1611 Confession, was in flux and Smyth was not a Baptist.
The "split" wasn't 50/50.
The split was between Arminian baby sprinklers and Particular Baptists. PB's had all of the elements that make up the Baptist church today and the Free Willer's did not.
How can we have inerrant scriptures if God doesn't override the libertarian free will of man in writing and copying the scriptures? The fruit of free will thinking can easily been seen in the mainline Protestant denominations who abandoned Reformation soteriology.
At the very least could you supply me with some book titles, articles, etc. that you found this information from? I work in a library and could find most of them using our resources.
Thank you.
jm
Actually the six principle Arminian Baptists influenced the formation of modern Baptists.
This in no way minimizes the work PREVIOUSLY completed by Particular Baptists as I have already posted. It was the Particular Baptist that held all of the marks of the modern Baptist church. The Arminians adopted PB theology limiting the atonement in power instead of scoop.
Yes, in 1652. The foundations, the theological heavy lifting had been done by the Calvinists in the 1620's, 30's and 40's who added rigor to their biblical exegesis by providing apologetics contra the baby sprinklers including the fuzzy free will Baptists. The Arminians simply borrowed from the PB's abandoning their former positions on mode of Baptism.The six principal Baptists formed the first Baptist conference in America.
They put Bible first and confessions second.
The Free Will Baptists used Particular Baptists works to support their biblical view of full immersion. The Bible is always first for Particular Baptist. As Carl Trueman notes:
All Christians engage in confessional synthesis; the difference is simply whether one adheres to a public confession, subject to public scrutiny, or to a private confession that is, by its very nature, immune to such examination.
I do want to make the point here that Christians are not divided between those who have creeds and confessions and those who do not; rather, they are divided between those who have public creeds and confessions that are written down and exist as public documents, subject to public scrutiny, evaluation, and critique, and those who have private creeds and confessions that are often improvised, unwritten, and thus not open to public scrutiny, not susceptible to evaluation and, crucially and ironically, not, therefore, subject to testing by Scripture to see whether they are true.
The modern church in general has failed on this point. We have borrowed from Post Modern society in abandoning confessionalism.
Ahhhh, not quite. You are engaging in fact twisting.The particular Baptists copied them even amending their 1742 confession to become more like the Arminians.
The PB's amended their Confession to include a doctrine for the sake of unity, that did not touch on the atonement or the idea of libertarian free will, but was believed by PB's from the beginning. To claim they did so to "become more like the Arminians" is a loose play on facts. The Confession was amended and not changed to include the laying on of hands.
7th, my Christian seeker friend, is repeating unsupported statements...again. I'll repeat my reply for those just tuning in.The first Baptist confession was Arminian,the second Calvinist,the third Arminian,the fourth Calvinist. It is a fact that Baptists have been 50/50 since the beginning.
Thomas Helwys (author of the 1611 Confession) and John Smyth (who is often claimed to be a Baptist was really Anabaptist) were baptistic but did not believe in immersion. They poured or sprinkled. The Particular or "Reformed" Baptists rejected Helwys/Smyth's beliefs about Arminianism and baptism by 1630's, going as far as to demand the Free Will Baptists adhere to immersion and get properly baptized. (see Hercules Collins, 1691 and Did They Dip? and Baptist History Vindicated by John Christian) It can be demonstrated from history to any willing student that Helwys' theology, and that of his 1611 Confession, was in flux and Smyth was not a Baptist.
The "split" wasn't 50/50.
The split was between Arminian baby sprinklers and Particular Baptists. PB's had all of the elements that make up the Baptist church today and the Free Willer's did not.
I think accuracy in these matters are important. You cannot throw out a bunch of unrelated historical facts with your opinions added and claim them as truth.I don't see why this is a big deal. Both have contributed to Baptist history.
If you mean by "holiness" unscriptural piety, yes. By "revival" you mean unscriptural methods of Finneyism, ok.The Arminians contributed to holiness,revival,and inerrancy of scripture.
How can we have inerrant scriptures if God doesn't override the libertarian free will of man in writing and copying the scriptures? The fruit of free will thinking can easily been seen in the mainline Protestant denominations who abandoned Reformation soteriology.
Just "some?"The Calvinists gave us some great theologians and preachers.
Explain? Demonstrate how this statement is true please.Baptists are the middle ground between Presbyterians and Pentecostals.
At the very least could you supply me with some book titles, articles, etc. that you found this information from? I work in a library and could find most of them using our resources.
Thank you.
jm
Upvote
0