Baptists in History [Archive]

23rd July 2004, 11:10 AM

To find baptists in history, we simply turn to the Bible and find the marks of a New Testament Church. History has been written (and rewritten) by those in power, the idea that history is honest is a new idea and a false one.

23rd July 2004, 11:13 AM

PS: I should have written, history isn't always honest.

GreenEyedLady

23rd July 2004, 11:46 AM

Thank you for posting that.
We need a sticky for Baptist History so that those who come here know what the false claims are and what the facts are.
GEL

crazy4Christ007

24th July 2004, 02:54 PM

24th July 2004, 03:49 PM

As a believer in sola scriptura/Bible alone those who reject the Bible as 'not enough' are the true protestants. They protest against God by denying the power of God's written word.

Baptists are found where the Bible is found.

I feel better now that I said it. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/blush.gif

@@Paul@@

28th July 2004, 12:11 PM

Im going to have to disagree with you. The denial of historical facts by the unfounded claim that it has been rewritten seems to me like an attmpt to justify the baptists' point of view.
The point is, All history is written/rewritten from someone's POV.

The more $$ you have, the better job you can do. :)

eldermike

28th July 2004, 12:58 PM

The people who 'write history' are the scholars that study the ancient texts honetly and without bias. If you began reading some patristic documents with honesty, those which are unanimously considered genuine, you would probably let some of these highly skeptical claims go.

Let's not debate this, wrong forum for this.

The process of using facts is a bigger issue than what is and what is not a fact. How it's used, interperted, applied, these are real issues. Even if we could get beyond the area of bias in historical writing (Custer was a great indian fighter or was he a terrorist? - Bush is a liar, or Bush was misled?), we are left with the process of using the facts. We reject your process, so there is no need to go into the facts. We use the bible for facts and read history with intrest but never apart from the bible.
Mike

Filia Mariae

28th July 2004, 01:10 PM

History has been written (and rewritten) by those in power, the idea that history is honest is a new idea and a false one.
SP,

I don't want you to have a heart attack or anything:) , but the feminists agree with you on this one. The word used for this philosophy is "deconstructionism."

28th July 2004, 02:27 PM

This little bit of rewritting history takes place about 20 years ago, the LDS Church had heard about documents containing facts about the early days of the mormon Church. The LDSC started to buy up everything it could, mainly documents that discredited Joey Smith and locked them up in a vault for no one to see. The joke was on them, they bought over 400 items and they were all fakes. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/kawaii.gif

This story does go to point, people in power WILL rewrite history given the chance.

Do you think it could have happened 2000 years ago? Sure thing. Don't believe everything you read unless it's in the Bible.

Crazy Liz

28th July 2004, 05:43 PM

This story does go to point, people in power WILL rewrite history given the chance.

Do you think it could have happened 2000 years ago? Sure thing. Don't believe everything you read unless it's in the Bible.

SP, I'm wondering exactly how you reach this conclusion. Without any regard to history, how do you know the Bible has this special status not shared with anything else?

ShyBoy

29th July 2004, 07:01 AM

This story does go to point, people in power WILL rewrite history given the chance.

Do you think it could have happened 2000 years ago? Sure thing. Don't believe everything you read unless it's in the Bible.
Why do you not put the Bible under the same scrutiny? Is not the Bible also a work of History? Could it not have been tampered with as well? How do we know that we are reading the same gospel that was preached 2000 years ago?

29th July 2004, 08:49 AM

Why do you not put the Bible under the same scrutiny? Is not the Bible also a work of History? Could it not have been tampered with as well? How do we know that we are reading the same gospel that was preached 2000 years ago?
I have the same faith in the Bible that you have for the Latin Catholic Church, it's that simple. As for history, the ECF's lead me to the Baptist faith. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Brother Charlie

29th July 2004, 08:55 AM

I have the same faith in the Bible that you have for the Latin Catholic Church, it's that simple. As for history, the ECF's lead me to the Baptist faith.

Erm...theres no contradiction between the bible and "The latin catholic church" (why dont you just call it the catholic church?)

And as far as history goes, the ECFs only lead me closer to the Catholic Church :D

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 11:30 AM

Erm...theres no contradiction between the bible and "The latin catholic church" (why dont you just call it the catholic church?)

And as far as history goes, the ECFs only lead me closer to the Catholic Church :D
According to ANY "denomination", there's NO contradiction between the Bible and one's beliefs and/or traditions... :doh:

Act 17:11 ...they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 11:37 AM

Why do you not put the Bible under the same scrutiny? Is not the Bible also a work of History? Could it not have been tampered with as well? How do we know that we are reading the same gospel that was preached 2000 years ago?
I believe I have EXACTLY what God wants me to have.

The Bible is NOT a work of history, it's a work of God!!

ShyBoy

29th July 2004, 12:23 PM

I believe I have EXACTLY what God wants me to have.

The Bible is NOT a work of history, it's a work of God!!
Again, I come to the same question. How does one know that the Bible is a work of God and not just another work of history that can contain errors or corruptions? I mean it was writen and copied by human hands, was it not? Humans make errors and mistakes, right? What is the basis that the Bible is excepted from errors and corruptions?

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 12:51 PM

Again, I come to the same question. How does one know that the Bible is a work of God and not just another work of history that can contain errors or corruptions? I mean it was writen and copied by human hands, was it not? Humans make errors and mistakes, right? What is the basis that the Bible is excepted from errors and corruptions?
Because God said He would.... And I believe him.....

Logic would say that man has messed up God's words while it was being copied and translated.... Human logic usually fails to see God's hand (Greek seek after knowledge).
Rom 1:20 KJV
(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
........Logic keeps most man from believing.
Heb 11:1-2 KJV
(1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(2) For by it the elders obtained a good report.
It's the invisible things we are to have faith in...
Psa 12:6-7 KJV
(6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
...It may not immediately LOOK like God did what He said He would do, but His hand has been preserving His words for over 4000 years. I have faith that He is.

RED that's ME

29th July 2004, 01:05 PM

MOD HAT ON

This will NOT turn into a debate between Baptist/AnaBaptist and Catholics. NonBaptist/AnaBaptist are reminded to remember the rules of the Baptist forum.

1) This forum is open to all Christians. Non-Christian members are not allowed to post here.

2) Baptist/Anabaptist, as well as all members of the Congregational Forums can post fellowship threads here. Only Baptist/Anabaptist members are allowed to debate threads to discuss various doctrines to do with their own denomination and other denominations (including the Catholic church), as long as they are within our rules.

3) Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members (eg. Catholic,Charasmatic, Weselyan, Lutheran, etc... members) can only post fellowship posts here or posts to ask a question regarding Baptist/Anabaptist doctrine. Once the question is answered, there shall be no debate over the answer in this forum by the Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members. Any debate posts by Non-Baptist/Anabaptist members will be deleted or moved to the appropriate forum. In other words, only Baptist/Anabaptist members can debate here.

4) No posts that denigrate a Christian denomination or Christian group will not be tolerated - these will be deleted and the poster will be warned.

Basically, we do NOT allow accusations that a particular Christian denomination or group is non-Christian. That is the bottom line. Debates regarding doctrine is allowed (for Baptist/Anabaptist members only). Accusations are not.

MOD HAT OFF

Crazy Liz

29th July 2004, 01:10 PM

I'm wondering why Paul and SP chose to respond to the question posted by Shy Boy and not to the similar one I posted (Post #10 in this thread) from a Baptist/Anabaptist POV.

ShyBoy

29th July 2004, 01:19 PM

Because God said He would.... And I believe him.....

Logic would say that man has messed up God's words while it was being copied and translated.... Human logic usually fails to see God's hand (Greek seek after knowledge).Rom 1:20 KJV

(20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
........Logic keeps most man from believing.Heb 11:1-2 KJV

(1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
(2) For by it the elders obtained a good report.
It's the invisible things we are to have faith in...Psa 12:6-7 KJV

(6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(7) Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
...It may not immediately LOOK like God did what He said He would do, but His hand has been preserving His words for over 4000 years. I have faith that He is.Do you (or Baptists in general) consider reason and logic to be counter to faith? Can one have faith without reason? Without reason what would one base their faith upon?

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 01:23 PM

Do you (or Baptists in general) consider reason and logic to be counter to faith? Can one have faith without reason? Without reason what would one base their faith upon?
I think i gave a pretty good answer which explained my view of your question...

To respect the rules, if you would like to continue this, PM me or start a new thread.

God Bless.

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 01:27 PM

I'm wondering why Paul and SP chose to respond to the question posted by Shy Boy and not to the similar one I posted (Post #10 in this thread) from a Baptist/Anabaptist POV.
Well that's on the bottom of page 1... someone i jumped to the top of page 2... The question by Shyboy.

Did my post to Shyboy at least explain why I think the Word of God has special status above all historical documentation?

Filia Mariae

29th July 2004, 02:03 PM

Well that's on the bottom of page 1... someone i jumped to the top of page 2... The question by Shyboy.

Did my post to Shyboy at least explain why I think the Word of God has special status above all historical documentation?
Not really. All you did was quote from Scripture to support your view of Scripture, which is rather like me quoting myself saying "All that I write is the infallible truth of God" in order to prove all that I write is the infallible truth of God.

I'd also like it if you responded to Crazy Liz.

Crazy Liz

29th July 2004, 02:05 PM

Well that's on the bottom of page 1... someone i jumped to the top of page 2... The question by Shyboy.

I really was commenting about the Mod reminder. If you had responded to me, rather than to Shy Boy, we could have continued the same conversation without violating the rules. Part of what has gotten us in trouble with Mods in the past for Catholics debating here has been Baptists/Anabaptists choosing to reply to postings from Catholics while ignoring similar posts by other Baptists/Anabaptists. We could avoid a lot of warnings and thread closings in these situations by choosing to respond to the post by the Baptist/Anabaptist member, rather than by the similar one by someone who is not Baptist of Anabaptist.

In this particular thread, if you had responded to me, or Catholic friends probably would have been satisfied just to read the discussion among ourselves, and would not have gotten a warning. Since you chose to respond to Shy Boy, I decided he was the one you wanted to lead the discussion, so I sat back and watched. If you had responded to me, it might have worked the other way around.

Now, for your substantive question...

Did my post to Shyboy at least explain why I think the Word of God has special status above all historical documentation?

Not really. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God if you evaluate it totally without regard to external history?

RED that's ME

29th July 2004, 02:31 PM

How do we know the Bible to be true?

It has proven itself over and over with prophesies fullfilled for starters.

If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.

Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/dan9.html#24)) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects. There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

http://www.christiananswers.net/0.gif The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:

"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."
Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/isa40.html#22))
Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/isa55.html#9))
Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/2pet3.html#7))
Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/eccl1.html#7))
Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/jer33.html#22))
Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/psa102.html#25))
Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/lev17.html#11))
Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/eccl1.html#6))
Gravitational field (Job 26:7 (http://www.christiananswers.net/bible/job26.html#7))
and many others.
These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

Unique Structure

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.

The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Bible's Unique Effect
The Bible is unique also in terms of its effect on individual men and on the history of nations. It is the all-time best seller, appealing both to hearts and minds, beloved by at least some in every race or nation or tribe to which it has gone, rich or poor, scholar or simple, king or commoner, men of literally every background and walk of life. No other book has ever held such universal appeal nor produced such lasting effects.

One final evidence that the Bible is true is found in the testimony of those who have believed it. Multitudes of people, past and present, have found from personal experience that its promises are true, its counsel is sound, its commands and restrictions are wise, and its wonderful message of salvation meets every need for both time and eternity.

Source:Christian Answers (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html)

Crazy Liz

29th July 2004, 03:14 PM

How do we know the Bible to be true?

It has proven itself over and over with prophesies fullfilled for starters.

That's a good place to begin.

Here's the OP:

To find baptists in history, we simply turn to the Bible and find the marks of a New Testament Church. History has been written (and rewritten) by those in power, the idea that history is honest is a new idea and a false one.

Then later SP said:

This little bit of rewritting history takes place about 20 years ago, the LDS Church had heard about documents containing facts about the early days of the mormon Church. The LDSC started to buy up everything it could, mainly documents that discredited Joey Smith and locked them up in a vault for no one to see. The joke was on them, they bought over 400 items and they were all fakes. http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/kawaii.gif

This story does go to point, people in power WILL rewrite history given the chance.

Do you think it could have happened 2000 years ago? Sure thing. Don't believe everything you read unless it's in the Bible.

If we start with the premise that all history outside the Bible has been rewritten, and therefore can't be trusted, how do we know prophecies were fulfilled, and someone didn't just rewrite history to make it look that way?

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 03:19 PM

Not really. How do you know the Bible is the Word of God if you evaluate it totally without regard to external history?
OK, The question Shyboy asked i see was a little different, so i see how my previous post didn't help... :)

When you say evaluate are you referring to understanding the Word? or deciding whether the Bible IS the Word of God based on history?

As far as whether the Bible IS the Word of God (neglecting historical proof); I can't count the times I’ve opened my bible to the EXACT verse(s) i needed to get through a particular day... Have you ever had that happen? For some reason, you just open the Bible and POOF!! Everything you need is right there... My Bible is ALIVE and well, that is proof enough for me!!

BBAS 64

29th July 2004, 03:22 PM

Not really. All you did was quote from Scripture to support your view of Scripture, which is rather like me quoting myself saying "All that I write is the infallible truth of God" in order to prove all that I write is the infallible truth of God.

I'd also like it if you responded to Crazy Liz.
Good Day, Carly

From an historical perspective there are some problems of category in your comparision here, the infallibilty of Scripture is based on the inerantance of the author.

Justin Martyr wrote:

"And now, if I say this to you, although I have repeated it many times, I know that it is not absurd so to do. For it is a ridiculous thing to see the sun, and the moon, and the other stars, continually keeping the same course, and bringing round the different seasons; and to see the computer who may be asked how many are twice two, because he has frequently said that they are four, not ceasing to say again that they are four; and equally so other things, which are confidently admitted, to be continually mentioned and admitted in like manner; yet that he who founds his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should leave them and abstain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, because it is thought he can bring forth something better than Scripture. The passage, then, by which I proved that God reveals that there are both angels and hosts in heaven is this: 'Praise the Lord from the heavens: praise Him in the highest. Praise Him, all His angels: praise Him, all His hosts.'" (Dialogue with Trypho, 85)

As Justin points out here some think by using Scripture they can bring fouth some thing better than Scripture, but they can not. Why is that?

Augustine

"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)

Because Scripture is in a class of it's own in that it is peculiar and all other thing are not of the same authority as Scripture.

Read my sig. :cool:

Peace to u,

Bill

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 03:36 PM

Crazy Liz

29th July 2004, 03:58 PM

OK, The question Shyboy asked i see was a little different, so i see how my previous post didn't help... :)

When you say evaluate are you referring to understanding the Word? or deciding whether the Bible IS the Word of God based on history?

As far as whether the Bible IS the Word of God (neglecting historical proof); I can't count the times I’ve opened my bible to the EXACT verse(s) i needed to get through a particular day... Have you ever had that happen? For some reason, you just open the Bible and POOF!! Everything you need is right there... My Bible is ALIVE and well, that is proof enough for me!!

OK. It's something that works for you, but might not work for me. I might find something else as helpful as you find the Bible.

Since yours is a subjective test, it does not support SP's conclusion that nothing but the Bible is to be believed.

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 04:16 PM

I think SP & BBAS 64 summed it up pretty well. "Scripture is in a class all by itself" SO "Don't believe everything you read unless it's in the Bible".......................... No one said don't believe ANYTHING you read other than the Bible. ;)

Anything other than the Word of God is just that,,, something other than the Word of God. So, who should we listen to, Adam or Eve, Noah or Moses, God or Man?

Crazy Liz

29th July 2004, 04:49 PM

@@Paul@@

29th July 2004, 05:56 PM

You still haven't answered my question. How do you reach that conclusion?
So you want me to answer a question regarding my faith by using historical facts?? It's not possible. That's like trying to find a gumball in a goose's **** ... just won't happen ^_^

Abraham had a voice and believed it was God. It could have been Satan for all he knew... Abraham believed and obeyed. Should we ask Abraham what facts or historical documents he used to decide who was talking to him?

So to answer your question bluntly: "How do you know the Bible is the Word of God if you evaluate it totally without regard to external history?"
Whenever of one's faith in something is being questioned, we will always have the neverending line of "What IF??" questions following...... I hate to say this but, I just know..... just like Abraham did.

History is written by Man, Scripture is written by God. So let me ask you a question: "Does God need man to prove He's actually written and preserved something like He said He would?"

Crazy Liz

29th July 2004, 09:43 PM

Fine. But that doesn't give me a reason to disbelieve history.

29th July 2004, 10:05 PM

If we start with the premise that all history outside the Bible has been rewritten, and therefore can't be trusted, how do we know prophecies were fulfilled, and someone didn't just rewrite history to make it look that way?
I didn't say ALL (as in all meaning all) http://christianforums.com/images/smilies/wink.gif (calvinist joke), but can we really trust ALL of what the history book teaches?

@@Paul@@

30th July 2004, 12:21 PM

Fine. But that doesn't give me a reason to disbelieve history.
No one said otherwise. :)

You can believe ALL the Word of God; can you believe ALL History?

Thanks and God Bless.......