Baptist History?

[KenBrauckmann]

Simple question -maybe not so simple an answer:

How do Baptists trace their history back to Christ and the Apostles? (For example, how would a Southern (or other) Baptist trace the history of the Baptist faith?)

(Website references would be acceptable if they DO go into the history. Some 'top-level' URLs never cover the history of the denomination, just the individual church or pastor).

[mlqurgw]

Simple question -maybe not so simple an answer:

How do Baptists trace their history back to Christ and the Apostles? (For example, how would a Southern (or other) Baptist trace the history of the Baptist faith?)

(Website references would be acceptable if they DO go into the history. Some 'top-level' URLs never cover the history of the denomination, just the individual church or pastor).
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.
http://www.sightlerpublications.com/Baptisthistory/baptistnotes.html

[KenBrauckmann]

That was a start - any others?

Thanks!

[mlqurgw]

That was a start - any others?

Thanks!
May I ask why the interest in Baptist history?

[JM]

The Roots of Baptist Theology,
Or Elements of Baptistic Thinking in History

This has been a difficult but fruitful task. As a Baptists I can stand and say we get our theology from the Bible, but what I hope to do is trace the historical develop of our theology…briefly. History is written by the victors someone once said, and that is true when we deal with the history of the church, which leaves the historical record marred by attempts to vindicate or vilify. Those who call themselves “Baptists” have no founder in the sense the Lutherans have Martin Luther or the Reformed church has John Calvin. No, the Baptists seem to have sprung up in Puritan England during the early 1600’s, bringing with them theological ideas and concepts found throughout history and more importantly, the Bible. It’s my intention to begin where we can see clear examples of Baptistic thinking in history and not speculate or guess as to which groups in history “might” have held similar beliefs. This is not meant as an apology for those beliefs, just a simple outline of those beliefs.

Reformation


The period in history known as the Reformation, is a fascinating time where the church recaptured the Gospel proclamation, that salvation is by Grace through faith in Christ [Ephesians 2:8]. Erasmus, a Christian humanist, was a popular figure of the period that encouraged the study of the New Testament in the original Greek [opposed to the Latin translation], which laid the foundation for the Authorized King James version of the Bible. With a renewed spirit and Scripture as the final authority, discrepancies became apparent between the church of the New Testament and the church under papal Rome. Martin Luther outlined these discrepancies in his “Ninety-Five Thesis” he posted in Wittenberg Germany in 1517, sparking the Reformation of the church.

It was from this turbulent time the Anabaptists[1] (http://christianforums.com/#_ftn1) emerged.

The Reformation front in Switzerland was being lead by Ulrich Zwingli [1484-1531], who shared/or influenced Baptistic thinking concerning the Lord’s Supper[2] (http://christianforums.com/#_ftn2) and “the clarity of the word of God and the ability of the common person to understand it.”[3] (http://christianforums.com/#_ftn3) By reading the Greek New Testament compiled by Erasmus, Zwingli came to the Lord and strived to have a church built upon the word. The Anabaptists story begins in 1520 with German Thomas Muntzer leading them. The movement was considered too radical and in many ways the modern Baptists, inclined to this so-called radical thinking, are the only true Reformers willing to return to New Testament teaching and not willing to hang onto Roman Catholic traditions. They spread and eventually the Swiss Anabaptists bunted heads with Zwingli over the City Council’s involvement in the church. Zwingli only wanted to make changes to the church the City Council would approve while the Anabaptists wanted a separation between the church and the state. There was also the issue over who was baptism. It’s important to keep in mind that Anabaptists are not Baptists in the modern sense of the name, Baptists share theological ideas, but Anabaptists and Baptists are not synonymous.

The Anabaptists remained outside of the mainstream Reformation but their contribution is invaluable. Five tenets can be identified and correspond to modern Baptist belief, those being: the central authority of the Bible, separation of church and state, freedom of conscience for religious belief, believers [credo] baptism and holiness of life. The mainstream Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Calvin and Ulrich Zwingli held on tightly to the medieval ideal of Christendom, keeping close ties to secular authority, believing enforcement of religious belief upon society [hence the people] was Biblical. The support of secular authority was seen as providential, Luther wanted both “corpus Christi/body of Christ” and “corpus Christianum/Christian society” which gave rise to the revival of Old Testament theocracy[4] (http://christianforums.com/#_ftn4) practice in place of New Testament ethnics which are more difficult to enforce. This framework was inherited from the Roman Catholic Church where the “Christian” emperor ruled with a Bishop, governing the Christian state. Tertullian wrote a rhetorical question, “What does the Emperor have to do with the church?” While the persecution was going on in Europe they fled and the teaching spread to England where we find efforts to expel them from England in 1538.

England


Although it may sound like a common alias used by criminals, John Smyth began a separatist congregation in England in 1606. He was a graduate of Cambridge and a minister in the Anglican Church, who eventually laid the foundations of the Baptist church. Genuine in faith and true to his times, Smyth wanted reform of the church upon a Biblical model, a purified church in England. Along with Thomas Helwys, Smyth separated from the Anglican Church, but progress was slow. They taught the central authority of the Bible, that the church is made up of believers only and the church should be governed by believers. Smyth and Helwys fled with their congregation to Holland in 1608 to seek freedom from secular persecution where they came into contact with Mennonites[5] (http://christianforums.com/#_ftn5) and were convinced that believer’s were the only candidates for baptism. It was in 1609 we mark the birth of the modern Baptist church. Smyth and Helwys eventually parted ways, Smyth wanted to merge his congregation with the Mennonites, and Helwys headed back to England in 1612. Helwys life was ended in 1616 for writing a book about freedom of the conscience.

It’s interesting to note that Baptists were more concerned with WHO was baptized then HOW they were baptized, emphasizing a church of believers, and not the mode in which one was baptized. The General Baptists foundered by Helwys used sprinkling and were also Arminian in theology. The Particular Baptists of 1641 went to great lengths to stress baptism by immersion and were also Calvinist in theology.

_____________________________________

The above is taken from a paper I wrote but I still working on the conclusion...

[JM]

Hey Ron, I would agree with #1 and #3 of your post.

:clap:

[KenBrauckmann]

May I ask why the interest in Baptist history?
Just one of those 'unanswered questions' I have in life. I have recently been reading the 'Early Church Fathers' and am familiar with the 'mainline' (EO, RC, Reformation) churches, but never really understood where Baptists 'came from'. I was looking for a chart the other day in the local Christian store to show my girlfriend something and the only 'timeline' of Church History I could find was in the 'Trail of Blood' pamphlet which reminded me of my 'unanswered question'.

Always had a fascination with history anyway.

Thanks for as much as I can devour :D , I mean, that you can supply. :)

[JM]

Two must read books. I bought the first one and was given the second for one this past week:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51YWHVKQWYL._AA240_.jpg

The above title is written by paedobaptist! ;) They end up with a credo view.

http://fundyreformed.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/baptismbook.jpg

The above title is excellent for dealing with the non-baptismal regeneration crowd [Reformed, etc.], those who baptize infants but deny baptismal regeneration.

Table of Contents:
Baptism in the Gospels
Baptism in Luke-Acts
Baptism in the Epistles
Baptism and the relationship between the Covenants
Baptism in the Patristic Writings
Confessor Baptism
Baptism and the Logic of Reformed Paedobaptists
Meredith Kline on Suzerainty, Circumcision, and Baptism
Baptism in the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement
Baptism in the Context of the Local Church

These two titles are excellent resources for anyone interested in "why" baptists baptism believers only. The first digs into the details of the often sites passages from the early church fathers and shows how paedobaptism was NOT the norm and the second defends the position by outlining believers baptism in the NT, ECF's and the Covenants.

You can also visit a site that hosts the work of John Gill:

Baptism, A Divine Command to be Observed. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_58.htm)
Baptism, A Public Ordinance of Divine Worship. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_59.htm)
The Ancient Mode of Baptizing by Immersion, Plunging, or Dipping into Water, Maintained and Vindicated. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_60.htm)
A Defence of a Book entitled, The Ancient Mode of Baptizing by Immersion, Plunging, or Dipping into Water, &c. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_61.htm)
The Divine Right of Infant-Baptism, Examined and Disproved. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_62.htm)
The Argument From Apostolic Tradition, In Favor of Infant-Baptism, Considered. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_63.htm)
An Essay on Scripture Baptism . . . Infant-Baptism is Destitute of Proof . . . To which is prefixed an address to Micaiah Towgood. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_64.htm)
An Answer To A Welsh Clergyman's Twenty Arguments in Favor of Infant-Baptism. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_65.htm)
Antipedobaptism; or Infant-Baptism, an Innovation. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_66.htm)
A Reply to a Book, entitled, A Defense of the Divine Right of Infant-Baptism. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_67.htm)
Some Strictures on a late Treatise, called, A Fair and Rational Vindication of the Right of Infants to the Ordinance of Baptism. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_68.htm)
Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Sermons&Tracts/sermon_69.htm)
A Dissertation concerning the Baptism of Jewish Proselytes. (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/sermons&tracts/sermon_70.htm)Peace,

jm

[DeaconDean]

Here is a link that traces Baptist roots from:

1520 - The Anabaptist (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/anabaptiststory.htm) Movement begins in Germany under the leadership of Thomas Müntzer

To:

2000 — SBC revises the Baptist Faith and Message
Baptist World Alliance has 100 million members

http://www.reformedreader.org/btimline.htm

Contrary to popular belief, Baptists can only trace their history to 1520. A lot like to believe they can trace them back to the early church (Landmarkism) but that fact is disputable.

Hope this helps.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[MrJim]

Here is a link that traces Baptist roots from:

1520 - The Anabaptist (http://www.reformedreader.org/history/anabaptiststory.htm) Movement begins in Germany under the leadership of Thomas Müntzer

To:

2000 — SBC revises the Baptist Faith and Message
Baptist World Alliance has 100 million members

http://www.reformedreader.org/btimline.htm

Contrary to popular belief, Baptists can only trace their history to 1520. A lot like to believe they can trace them back to the early church (Landmarkism) but that fact is disputable.

Hope this helps.

God Bless

Till all are one.
Muntzer was a leader, not the leader of the anabaptist movement. His was a failed attempt by use of violence and force to create some Kingdom of God on earth.

(It is not surprising that a Reformed site would paint the entire movement off this one nutjob. Calvin (along with Rome and Luther) declared the anabaptists as heretics, which would put the reformed baptists in a bit of a quandary over the contradictions of two theological systems)

Conrad Grebel would be a better person to reference as an early leader that better represents what the anabaptist movement was and eventually became over the centuries~but I derail...

[KenBrauckmann]

One thing I learned in school about history is that 'de-railment' is nearly impossible.

I did a paper (my mother suggested the topic) back in 9th grade (1977-78) about the Edict of Nantes. It was only 2 years ago - 14 years after her death - that I discovered that a relative had been evicted from France when that Edict had been revoked!!!

So I have no problem tracking down 'odd ends' in my studies! :D

Why do I keep hearing about the 'long trail' back to the Apostle's (Landmark view) if there is (apparently) no evidence to back it up?

Ken

PS MrJim - interesting: Orthodox Christian cross for a Baptist's Avatar? What is the story behind _that_ 'odd end' ? :D

[DeaconDean]

Muntzer was a leader, not the leader of the anabaptist movement. His was a failed attempt by use of violence and force to create some Kingdom of God on earth.

And how is he any different than Rome who persecuted Christians from AD 60 onward. Or how is he different than Calvin who persecuted Michael Servetus under the French inquisition?

All i am saying is that the Anabaptist movement, or the Baptist movement can only be traced back as far as perhaps 1450 to 1520.

That's all.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

One thing I learned in school about history is that 'de-railment' is nearly impossible.

I did a paper (my mother suggested the topic) back in 9th grade (1977-78) about the Edict of Nantes. It was only 2 years ago - 14 years after her death - that I discovered that a relative had been evicted from France when that Edict had been revoked!!!

So I have no problem tracking down 'odd ends' in my studies! :D

Why do I keep hearing about the 'long trail' back to the Apostle's (Landmark view) if there is (apparently) no evidence to back it up?

Ken

PS MrJim - interesting: Orthodox Christian cross for a Baptist's Avatar? What is the story behind _that_ 'odd end' ? :D

You should realize that in historical research there is not just truth or no evidence. It's not that simple. Landmarkism starts with a basic truth, that the Church has existed continuously. Then they take that since they consider themselves the true Church, that there must have been congregations exactly like their's throughout the ages.

So you get where some go back and try to put different groups as the true church for that time and end up with a trail of descent.

Generally, in order to try to make that fit, they have mostly relied on just a couple of things. Baptism and congregational government to say those are the marks of the true church.

It ended up that one of the great challenges to their thoughts came from withing the Southern Baptist Convention. William Whitsitt then President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out that according to historical evidence, Baptists did not baptise by immersion prior to 1641. Landmark Baptists rose up against him since this was a clear contradiction of the history they had constructed and ousted him. Eventually, most Landmark Baptists who were involved in the Southern Baptist Convention split from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Since you are good at finding odd ends. I would suggest looking at and studying the groups that Landmark Baptists have said were Baptist in everything but name. Novatianists, Donatists, Cathari, Waldenses, and Anabaptists, see if you can do a sincere thorough study and conclude those groups were Baptist in everything but name.

Marv

[JM]

Anderson, S. E.
- The First Baptist (http://www.pbministries.org/History/S.%20E.%20Anderson/the_first_baptist.htm)
Baptist Examiner
- The Origin and Perpetuity of the Baptist (http://www.pbministries.org/History/Origin%20and%20Perpetuity/origin_and_perpetuity.htm)
Benedict, David
- The History of the Donatists (http://www.pbministries.org/History/David%20Benedict/the_donatists.htm)
Christian, John T., A.M., D. D., LL. D
- A History of the Baptists, Vol. 1
(http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.%20Christian/vol1/history_of_the_baptist_vol1.htm)- A History of the Baptists, Vol. 2 (http://www.pbministries.org/History/John%20T.%20Christian/vol2/history_of_the_baptist_vol2.htm)
Cramp, J. M., D. D
- Baptist History (http://www.pbministries.org/History/J.%20M.%20Cramp/Baptist%20History/baptist_history.htm)
Ford, S. H.
- The Origin of the Baptists (http://www.pbministries.org/History/S.%20H.%20Ford/Origin%20of%20the%20Baptists/origin_of_the_baptist.htm)
Goodwin, Paul & Frazier, Bob
- Baptist Churches in all Ages (http://www.pbministries.org/History/Goodwin_&_Frazier/Baptist_Churches.htm)

Graves, J. R.
- Old Landmarkism: What Is It? (http://www.pbministries.org/History/J.%20R.%20Graves/Old%20Landmarkism/old_landmarkism.htm)
Hassell, C. B & Sylvester
- History of the Church of God (http://www.pbministries.org/History/S.%20Hassell/church_of_god.htm)
Jackson, D. N.
- Baptist Doctrines and History (http://www.pbministries.org/History/D.%20N.%20Jackson/baptist_doctrine_and_history.htm)
Justice, Laurence A.
- The Perpetuity of the Church (http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Laurence%20Justice/perpetuity_of_the_church.htm)
McGrath, William R.
- The Anabaptists: Neither Catholics or Protestants (http://www.pbministries.org/History/William%20R.%20McGrath/the_anabaptists.htm)
Wylie, J. A.
- The History of the Waldenses (http://www.pbministries.org/History/J.%20A.%20Wylie/the_waldenses.htm)


Useful links on Landmarkism from Landmarkists.

[MrJim]

PS MrJim - interesting: Orthodox Christian cross for a Baptist's Avatar? What is the story behind _that_ 'odd end' ? :D

...yeah i gots issues;)

[MrJim]

And how is he any different than Rome who persecuted Christians from AD 60 onward. Or how is he different than Calvin who persecuted Michael Servetus under the French inquisition?

All i am saying is that the Anabaptist movement, or the Baptist movement can only be traced back as far as perhaps 1450 to 1520.

That's all.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Just a personal thing there DD~anabaptist background, just like seeing a bit more accuracy;)

[KenBrauckmann]

You should realize that in historical research there is not just truth or no evidence. It's not that simple. Landmarkism starts with a basic truth, that the Church has existed continuously. Then they take that since they consider themselves the true Church, that there must have been congregations exactly like their's throughout the ages.

So you get where some go back and try to put different groups as the true church for that time and end up with a trail of descent.

Generally, in order to try to make that fit, they have mostly relied on just a couple of things. Baptism and congregational government to say those are the marks of the true church.

It ended up that one of the great challenges to their thoughts came from withing the Southern Baptist Convention. William Whitsitt then President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, pointed out that according to historical evidence, Baptists did not baptise by immersion prior to 1641. Landmark Baptists rose up against him since this was a clear contradiction of the history they had constructed and ousted him. Eventually, most Landmark Baptists who were involved in the Southern Baptist Convention split from the Southern Baptist Convention.

Since you are good at finding odd ends. I would suggest looking at and studying the groups that Landmark Baptists have said were Baptist in everything but name. Novatianists, Donatists, Cathari, Waldenses, and Anabaptists, see if you can do a sincere thorough study and conclude those groups were Baptist in everything but name.

Marv
Hmmm... I have noticed that all those gruops were condemned as heretical by the early church (most before 350 AD)... and JM's post looks like I might have some more reading to fill out my library card for 2008! (Always good to start the year with a full wish list!!:D ) (and I know those are links, but it was the thought that mattered... now, where is that fresh stack of printer paper....?)

Thanks both!

[KenBrauckmann]

...yeah i gots issues;)
would like to hear the story sometime! Which way do the issues go? (PM if you want )

[MrJim]

would like to hear the story sometime! Which way do the issues go? (PM if you want )

Check out my blog, you can find it all there Beware all ye who enter :D

[KenBrauckmann]

Still reading - working my way through your blog Jim - backwards of course - now on pg 13/14....

And already started into the Landmarkist stuff.... Should I put weight on the fact that the Landmark view traces to the groups that were anathematized by the Early Church - implying that the Baptists believe things condemned by the Early Church?? (Or just keep reading?)

[MrJim]

Still reading - working my way through your blog Jim - backwards of course - now on pg 13/14....

And already started into the Landmarkist stuff.... Should I put weight on the fact that the Landmark view traces to the groups that were anathematized by the Early Church - implying that the Baptists believe things condemned by the Early Church?? (Or just keep reading?)

wow, you're really reading my stuff:blush: ?

It's interesting that baptists/anabaptists would be closer to those early "heretical" groups, isn't it? Lots of inconsistencies when viewing church history~some have said it doesn't matter a lick what went on back then...all that matters is now and my bible.

[KenBrauckmann]

wow, you're really reading my stuff:blush: ?

It's interesting that baptists/anabaptists would be closer to those early "heretical" groups, isn't it? Lots of inconsistencies when viewing church history~some have said it doesn't matter a lick what went on back then...all that matters is now and my bible.
yes - usually the ones who say that are the ones that would be most embarrassed by the 'old ways'.... curious....

An 'issue' that you 'have' I am guessing?

[MrJim]

yes - usually the ones who say that are the ones that would be most embarrassed by the 'old ways'.... curious....

An 'issue' that you 'have' I am guessing?

Seems to be somewhat inconsistent with what Christ said about the church, that frankly it's been something of a disaster since the apostles died, then was resurrected at the reformation, being held together by a thread of rag tag remnants, though the apostate "church" put together the very canon we value...I grant I'm not much of a baptist~sort of a running joke at the baptist church where I go ;)

[BigNorsk]

Hmmm... I have noticed that all those gruops were condemned as heretical by the early church (most before 350 AD)... and JM's post looks like I might have some more reading to fill out my library card for 2008! (Always good to start the year with a full wish list!!:D ) (and I know those are links, but it was the thought that mattered... now, where is that fresh stack of printer paper....?)

Thanks both!

I've never figured out how they thought the Cathari were Baptists. Other than opposing the Catholic church, I can't figure out why they chose them. Most of the Cathari completely rejected the Old Testament saying God in the Old Testament was Satan himself. They rejected the world, thinking man would go through a series of reincarnations to become pure spirit. And they even pretty well rejected baptism. You'd go through a series of fasts and periods of total avoidance of anything of the world before you were baptized by the laying on of hands, and then you would continue fasting until you starved to death, if you were pure that is.

The Cathari weren't Christian as far as I can tell under even liberal definitions of the word Christian, much less Baptist.

I've never figured out the Donatists and some of the others either, but the Cathari must have just been thrown in through ignorance of anything other than they were killed by the Roman Catholics. That's the only rational I can see, but I haven't really read Landmark explanations of how the Cathari are really Baptists.

Marv

[KenBrauckmann]

Yeah - kind of what I am noticing: ANY group that opposed the 'apostate established' Church seems to be in the 'link' of the Landmarkists - even though those same gropus would have oppsed each other!!

This is what is confusing me about the position of the Landmarkists. This is why I asked the question - to fill in the 'gaps' as it were.

[mlqurgw]

Yeah - kind of what I am noticing: ANY group that opposed the 'apostate established' Church seems to be in the 'link' of the Landmarkists - even though those same gropus would have oppsed each other!!

This is what is confusing me about the position of the Landmarkists. This is why I asked the question - to fill in the 'gaps' as it were.
It may help you to realize that Landmarkists have a different view of the " church." That is their main focus. They do not belive in a universal church but see the word ecclesia as speaking of the local assembly only. They do not recognize even other Baptists as the true church. In reality it is very much like the Roman Catholic view with a few differences. Hence ther doctrine of baptism is that you are not Scripturally baptized unless it was done in a Landmark church. They make the claim that all true churches in the link held to the distinctives outlined in " The Trail of Blood."
BTW, I live in the heart of Landmarkism and even went to one of their schools for a semester. I find it interesting that they are made up of both Calvinists and Arminians but actually started out as Calvinistic, much like the history of the SBC.

[JM]

I thought Graves preached against Calvinism?

[mlqurgw]

I thought Graves preached against Calvinism?Not that I am aware of. Of course I could be wrong. I do belive he took a great many doctrines from B. H. Carroll who was a Calvinist.

[JM]

I went back to the net to see what I could find, it looks like he was Amyraldian some days and Calvinist on others.

[MrJim]

http://www.theopedia.com/Order_of_God's_decrees#Amyraldian_view

Amyraldian view

Amyraldism developed historically following the Synod of Dort as a compromise between Calvinism and the early Arminianism by giving up what was perceived as some of the harshness of Calvinism. The Amyraldian view, named after French Theologian Moses Amyraut, 1569-1664, is associated with Calvinism because it retains a particularistic element by acknowledging God's distinguishing grace in the election of individuals.

The logic the of Amyraldians, however, places divine election after the decree to provide an atonement. This makes the atonement universal in nature and the application of the atonement particular in nature through divine election. This view is sometimes referred to as Four-Point Calvinism since it gives up the Calvinist doctrine of limited atonement in favor of a universal atonement. It is also known, perhaps more descriptively, as Hypothetical Redemptionism. Although Amyraldianism may be a recognizable form of Calvinism because it retains the principle of particularism in election, it is not necessarily a good form of Calvinism. According to B. B. Warfield, "it is a logically inconsistent and therefore unstable form of Calvinism. For another more important reason, it turns away from a substitutionary atonement, which is as precious to the Calvinist as his particularism," (Plan, p. 98).

The education never ends...and I didn't know 4-point had an official name;)

[JM]

There is an Amyraldian Assoc. here (http://www.nrchurch.co.nr/) with mp3's to download. They discuss Mosie Amyralt, the school of Sumar, Richard Baxter, etc.

peace.

j

[Crazy Liz]

I sent someone here from the Anabaptist forum to look for Trail of Blood believers.

Bumping a couple of threads to help him out.