Posted on 02/03/2006 6:23:02 AM PST by precedence
More to come....
Please refer to #217.
I credit much of the freedom the world now enjoys to the Baptists. The establishment of the "divorcement of church and state", freedom of conscience and the end of slavery in Western civilization can be creditted primarily to the Baptists. John Leland was a Baptist preacher who is singularly more responsible for the US Bill of Rights than any other individual man. It was he who "forced" Madison to adopt the Bill of Rights and promote them for ratification with the US Constitution.
Without the Bill of Rights and the 1st Amendment the world would be a very different, and less free, place than it is today. So many nations owe their freedoms to the US and their constitutions are often modelled from our own.
As for Baptist history...consider the following.
Baptist History.A Very Brief Introduction to Baptist History, Then and Now
by Bruce Gourley, Baptist Historian
(Baptist Origins; The Reformed Debate; The Southern Baptist Controversy and Beyond)Those who would research Baptist history via the Internet be warned: there is an abundance of information about Baptist history, but most of it comes from biased perspectives which are fed from personal agendas.
There is a long-held saying among Baptists: when you get two Baptists together, you get three difference opinions! This is most evident when one reads online Baptist history resources: many seem bent on proving that their particular view of Baptist history is the one and only true understanding of Baptist history.
History, in fact, is subject to various (and often contradictory) interpretations. Baptist history is not exempt from the interpretive confusion. Indeed, Baptists are even in disagreement over how they originated!
1. Outgrowth of English Separatism -- In this view, the Baptist faith originated from within the Separatist movement, a movement which arose in Europe with the goal of breaking away from the Church of England (which previously had broken away from the Catholic Church, yet retained many of the trappings; those within the Church of England who wished to remain a part of the Church and yet purify it became known as "Puritans;" they were, in a sense, cousins to Separatists). The influence of Anabaptists upon early Baptists is considered minimal, according to this viewpoint. The earliest Baptist church is traced back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with John Smyth as pastor. The group's embracing of "believer's baptism" became the defining moment which led to the establishment of this first Baptist church. Shortly thereafter, Smyth left the group, and Thomas Helwys took over the leadership, leading the church back to England in 1611. This view of Baptist origins has the most historical support and is the most widely accepted view of Baptist origins. Representative writers include William H. Whitsitt, Robert G. Torbet, Winthrop S. Hudson, William G. McLoughlin and Robert A. Baker.
2. Influence of Anabaptists -- This view holds that although Baptists originated from English Separatism, their emergence owes much to the earlier Anabaptists. According to this view, some early Baptist were influenced by some Anabaptists. The Dutch Mennonites (Anabaptists), for example, shared some similarities with General Baptists (believer's baptism, religious liberty, separation of church and state, and Arminian views of salvation, predestination and original sin). However, other than this, there were significant differences between Anabaptists and Baptists (Anabaptists tended towards extreme pacifism, communal sharing of earthly goods, and an unorthodox optimistic view of human nature). Therefore, few Baptists hold to this theory of Baptist origins. Representative writers include A.C. Underwood and William R. Estep. Among some contemporary Baptist scholars who emphasize the faith of the community over soul liberty, the Anabaptist influence theory is making a comeback.
3. Continuation of Biblical Teachings -- Some Baptists "seek to go back beyond the Anabaptist movement to trace the continuity of Baptist forms of faith through the centuries" (Leon McBeth, The Baptist Heritage, page 56). While advocates of this view do not claim a succession of organized Baptist churches (see below), they believe that Baptist faith and practice have existed since the time of Christ. This view has a goodly number of advocates, including a number of early Baptist historians, many of whom were concerned with presenting the validity of their faith (denomination) over and above that of other denominations. Some representative writers of an earlier era include Thomas Crosby (one of the earliest Baptist historians, he wrote in the early 1700s), A.H. Newman and David Benedict.
4. Succession of Baptist Churches -- This viewpoint goes beyond mere "continuation of biblical teachings" and and declares that Baptist churches actually existed in an unbroken chain since the time of Christ and John the Baptist. Commonly referred to as "Landmarkism" or the "Trail of Blood" theory (J.M.Carroll wrote a book of supposed Baptist history by this name), this view declares that those churches which stood outside the influence of the Roman Catholic Church at various times in church history were, in actuality although not in name, Baptist churches. That which made them Baptists was their refusal to accept infant baptism, or, said another way, their refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian entity. However, many of the historical churches which Landmarkists label as Baptist churches were actually heretical in regards to doctrine. Nonetheless, the "Landmarkist" view, which has little actual historical support, remains popular among certain Baptists. The reason for its moderate popularity (and, indeed, strong popularity among some rural Baptists in the southern and western United States) stems (to some degree) from a long-standing dislike (if not hate) of Catholics by many Baptists. Representative writers of this viewpoint include J.M Carroll, G.H. Orchard and J.M. Cramp. It should also be noted that, interestingly enough, much of the Baptist history material thus far posted on the Internet is Landmarkist in nature, indicating that Landmarkists are a very vocal lot.
Historically, Baptists and Protestants have settled their differences, theological or otherwise, by splitting and establishing a new church. Furthermore, all Baptist churches, from the most liberal Northern or black congregations to the most separatist, KJV only fundamentalist, are congregational in government. The Southern Baptist Convention or any other Baptist association hold no power over the individual congregations save for the ability to expel a particular church from the association. All monies are spent by the Board of Deacons or elders and all property is held by the congregation.
The area where the bombings took place likely has very few Muslims, and those that are there are probably business owners or medical practitioners, hardly the sort to be advocates of jihad. I would think that if Muslim radicals attacked churches, such activity would occur in places like the Detroit area, where they are numerous.
Unfortunately, a corruption exists in American culture, even in rural areas of Alabama, fueled by the degenerate mainstream culture and the ubiquity of narcotic drugs like methamphetamines. It is probable that the attackers are young men like Klebold and Harris, who have become immersed in heavy metal, Gothic culture, and drugs. Even the most rural communities are plagued with such misfits.
post 222 above was for you as well.
Most blacks are NOT Southern Baptist, but Southern Baptist churches do admit black members. Blacks are usually part of predominantly black denominations.
I am a Baptist. Every church is unique and different because every member of the church is a "priest" in their own rights.
Baptists believe in the "priesthood of the believer".
"There should be no institution, human person, rite, or system which stands between the individual person and God...All have equal access to the father's table, the Father's ear, and the Father's heart."
We all understand the Bible as the Holy Spirit leads us to understand it, as individuals.
It's sort of like Anglicans in the US, who can be ECUSA, REC, AMiA, or part of a South American or African group.
A fair sized city in the south is going to have several Southern Baptists, an American Baptist if there are a lot of yankees, perhaps an independent baptist church, and an assortment of Black baptist churches.
Well, if that's the case then it's obvious that only one of the arsons was a hate crime. The other four were attempted insurance scams...
Reacting to the news of the burned churches, Christian Coalition of Alabama President John Giles stated, “When someone commits a disgraceful cowardly act and assaults the Sacred House of Worship, it is a not only sad day in Alabama, but also a sad day in America. Whoever is responsible for these acts should be federally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When the House of the Lord is not
Reacting to the news of the burned churches, Christian Coalition of Alabama President John Giles stated, “When someone commits a disgraceful cowardly act and assaults the Sacred House of Worship, it is a not only sad day in Alabama, but also a sad day in America. Whoever is responsible for these acts should be federally prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. When the House of the Lord is not safe, then no where in America is safe.”
Perhaps it was something as simple as the construction worker who caused the first fire wanting to deflect blame from himself? Could he/she have driven to all the churches afterwards and started fires?
While the idea of understanding the Bible as the Holy Spirit teaches is true, it should be noted that if an individual introduces heresy, they are not tolerated and are normally voted out of a local assembly.
I'm not hearing HATE CRIME in the MSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"What, they are predicting additional arson attacks on SBC buildings?"
Oh... Southern Baptist Convention.... I was wondering what telecom had to do with this.
This is terrible. It's sad for the people. It's sad for the community and its sad for the state of affairs.
But also, some of the old wood churches have history. out country may only be 200 years old but that just means that a 100 year church means all that much more.
Your's is an extremely simple question.
After bruising my lower jaw on my keyboard after reading your absolutely INCREDIBLE post.....I will tell you this axiom: if such a scenario were indeed "fact", it would not BE "simple". It would be worthy of serious criminal profiling on an equal level with most of the hypotheses presented on this thread (all of which overlap your own theory).
Thanks for the explanations. I grew up in the deep south and always saw the different signs on the churches, but never really thought of them as distinct or that different.
"I'm not hearing HATE CRIME in the MSM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I know if my family's church burned down, the most regulatr church goers would be the first to forgive.
You think that was tough. How about the GARBC> General Association of Regular Baptists. As a joke, when our school played them in basketball, we called it, GARBAGE. Once, we asked where do the Irregular Baptists go? They said, "To YOUR church."
I was really sort of poking fun at a breaking news post that consists of a headline, with no story that promises "more to come". Since there was no story at all, I figured the "more to come" must be a prediction of additional arsonist activities.
I agree, but if it were 5 synagogues or 5 mosques, it would be hate crime central coverage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.