We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground 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 consciences 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.—Charles H. Spurgeon
One of our more famous closet Baptist. And the Reformers thought that he was all theirs.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Please pass the meatloaf b-d.
I'd be interested to see any credible historical evidence of the "trail of blood" theory of Baptist denomination, as I have heard the claim before, likewise without much beyond the florid eloquence of Spurgeon to buck it up.
We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground 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 consciences 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.That's so moving. It speaks so much to the importance of not corrupting an individual's relationship with God.
This thread has not resulted in much discussion of the posted article.
Do you guys really think that Luther's ideas on enslavement of man to sin are really well thought through? He seems to me to fit his own description of Erasmus, i.e. he seems also to me like a sleeping and dreaming man who blurts out first yes, and then no.
But beyond that, the discussion early on took on the idea of whether God was capable of wrath or not, and that started me thinking on a couple of passages in Scripture which trouble me.
The first, is the passage on Jacob and Esau. It certainly can lead one to thinking that God is capable of a kind of capricious partiality. Erasmus' explanation that God hated Esau because he was aware of his future sinful life, makes some sense to me, but it doesn't do much for assuaging the uncomfortable feeling that this passage holds for me. The idea that he will have mercy on who he will have mercy is perfectly understandble, but if I'm predestined for hell or don't know that I at least have a shot at being saved, how can I not fall into despair?
The second Scripture is the one in which Jesus calls the non-jewish woman a dog. He does finally extend his Grace to her after she fully prostrates herself (I understand and accept that part), but that passage always left me with the sense that gentiles were of second importance to Christ. I always admired the woman in the Scripture, because she was the epitome of humility. Why do you suppose He called her a dog, that couldn't have been a neutral term, could it? Is her humility and persistence the moral of the story?