I came across these paraghraphs recently in a little booklet by Louis Entzminger and wanted to share it. I had often thought of the first reference he uses, but I liked the way he quoted B.H. Carroll who developed the thought as follows:
I never could understand why some Baptists rejoice to say there is no church succession.
I would like for them to take hold of these two passages in this chapter, "To the intent that now unto the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places might be made known through the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord," coupled with the last verse, "Unto him be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus unto all generations forever and ever. Amen."
Whenever church work stops) then the glory stops. Did God intend for it to stop? If he did, why did he say, "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world"? And why should we tell the church when celebrating the Lord's Supper, "As often as you do this you show forth the Lord's death till he come"? Why does he provide for perpetuity? I am not discussing church history now. I am discussing God's purpose in establishing the church. Jesus said, "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I do not believe they have. They have never been able to convince me that the gates of hell have prevailed against the church.
I believe that God not only has had people in all ages, but that he has had an organized people.
He provided for transmission: "The things which I have committed to you, the same commit thou to faithful men." How do men have faith? By hearing. How can they hear without a preacher, and how can they have a preacher unless he be sent? Did he not send the church all gifts – apostolic gifts, prophetic gifts, evangelistic gifts, and pastoral gifts? He set every one of them in the church. The apostles and prophets served the church; when they were taken away, there remained pastors, evangelists, teachers. On whose authority? Christ's. Where placed? In the church. I am satisfied that if the angels, after watching the unfolding of the wisdom of God in the gospel of Jesus Christ, from the time Christ died until the time the apostles died, they have not had a recess since of a thousand years. They are not left in suspense, vainly bending over to learn more through silent centuries. The school goes right on. The purposes ripen. The ordinances continue to tell their story. Churches come from churches somewhat as horses come from horses. History cannot trace every detail of the pedigree showing how a certain drove of wild mustangs in western Texas are descendants of the Spanish barbs, brought here by the discoverers 400 years ago. The fact that the mustangs are here proves the succession, since only like begets like.
I do not undervalue church history, but far more important to me than fallible human records of passing events is the New Testament forecast of church history. The former may err – the latter never.
The booklet is "Studies in the New Testament Church". What books/booklets do you favor on this topic? You can read more of this lecture at http://sglblibrary.homestead.com/files/bhcarroll/Volume_15.htm.
Showing posts with label Baptist history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptist history. Show all posts
Happy Brother Patrick's Day?
If you have read Phil Stringer's book, Faithful Baptist Witness, which outlines independent baptists by doctrine from the time of Christ down through the ages, you may be familiar with his claim that "Saint Patrick", was indeed a saint (as in being saved), but was in fact likely a baptist missionary!
Here is an article (GARBC) about Saint Patrick on this day we celebrate him as a catholic saint. "Patrick should be rescued from his ecclesiastical kidnappers. That is, we have as much claim upon him as does Roman Catholicism. Patrick’s faith and practice were more consistent with our theology than with Roman Catholicism."
Some of his points are:
"First, Patrick saw Scripture as the supreme religious authority. He never appealed to the authority of the church, even when it would have served him well. He never mentioned a church council or creed, although his doctrinal statement closely parallels the “Rule of Faith,” a creed common in his day (Confession).
Second, Patrick made no reference to baptizing infants. He once reported that he “baptized in the Lord, so many thousand men” (“Letter to Coroticus” in The Life and Writings). The word “men” implies that he did not baptize infants.
Third, absent from his writing is any mention of purgatory, Mariolatry, or submission to the authority of the Pope, which, although an argument from silence, suggests that Patrick did not believe in them, did not hold them as significant to true faith, or was ignorant of them.
Fourth, the legacy of Patrick’s ministry is evident in the churches he established, which continued to be sound in doctrine well into the ninth century. They were amazingly evangelical (compared to the Roman Church of the day), teaching original sin and the impossibility of salvation by human merits or effort, Christ alone being the sinner’s righteousness. Additionally they taught the vicarious atonement.
Fifth, in his Confession, Patrick recognized the agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion. No doubt it became a tenet of the church’s doctrine. Sixth, the teaching of justification by faith is a key aspect of Patrick’s contribution (The Life and Writings). Seventh, Patrick believed in the intercession of the Holy Spirit and of Christ (quoting Romans 8:26 and 1 John 2:1). But he never mentioned the intercession of saints, angels, or Mary."
The writer asserts that: "The man we know today as St. Patrick was kidnapped twice: first by Irish pirates, then after his death, by the Roman Catholic Church." Read the entire article HERE.
Here is an article (GARBC) about Saint Patrick on this day we celebrate him as a catholic saint. "Patrick should be rescued from his ecclesiastical kidnappers. That is, we have as much claim upon him as does Roman Catholicism. Patrick’s faith and practice were more consistent with our theology than with Roman Catholicism."
Some of his points are:
"First, Patrick saw Scripture as the supreme religious authority. He never appealed to the authority of the church, even when it would have served him well. He never mentioned a church council or creed, although his doctrinal statement closely parallels the “Rule of Faith,” a creed common in his day (Confession).
Second, Patrick made no reference to baptizing infants. He once reported that he “baptized in the Lord, so many thousand men” (“Letter to Coroticus” in The Life and Writings). The word “men” implies that he did not baptize infants.
Third, absent from his writing is any mention of purgatory, Mariolatry, or submission to the authority of the Pope, which, although an argument from silence, suggests that Patrick did not believe in them, did not hold them as significant to true faith, or was ignorant of them.
Fourth, the legacy of Patrick’s ministry is evident in the churches he established, which continued to be sound in doctrine well into the ninth century. They were amazingly evangelical (compared to the Roman Church of the day), teaching original sin and the impossibility of salvation by human merits or effort, Christ alone being the sinner’s righteousness. Additionally they taught the vicarious atonement.
Fifth, in his Confession, Patrick recognized the agency of the Holy Spirit in conversion. No doubt it became a tenet of the church’s doctrine. Sixth, the teaching of justification by faith is a key aspect of Patrick’s contribution (The Life and Writings). Seventh, Patrick believed in the intercession of the Holy Spirit and of Christ (quoting Romans 8:26 and 1 John 2:1). But he never mentioned the intercession of saints, angels, or Mary."
The writer asserts that: "The man we know today as St. Patrick was kidnapped twice: first by Irish pirates, then after his death, by the Roman Catholic Church." Read the entire article HERE.
Happy Saint Patrick's Day!
The Petrobrussians and the Arnoldists
“Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee.” Deuteronomy 32:7
Looking at these groups of Baptists briefly brings to light four from the twelfth century. These congregations were home to some of the boldest Baptist ministers who have ever lived. Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia were both great preachers and great overall leaders of the Baptists.
I know that many critics of our Baptist heritage say, “You have named Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Vaudois, Cathari, Paterines, Petrobrussians and Arnoldists, but you have not named any group by the title ‘Baptist’, therefore you are just speculating that these were Baptists.” My answer to the critics is we believe that Baptist faith and practice, or a continuation of biblical teachings and distinctives, have existed since the time of Christ. The title Baptist is very important to us because it is the title that God gave His people in the New Testament, but ultimately it is what you believe that determines whether or not you are a Baptist. Therefore what denominational label would you place on someone:
A. Who believed in salvation by grace,
B. Who baptized by immersion upon a profession of faith,
C. Who rejected infant baptism,
D. Who rejected the baptism of anyone coming from the mother of harlots or her offspring,
E. Who believed the Bible to be without error?
The honest answer is: A BAPTIST. According to Ephesians 3:20-21, Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 23:34, Jesus promised the church would stand, suffer and glorify Him THROUGHOUT THE AGES.
In Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia, we clearly see several things. First, we see God’s desire to change people by His grace and then use them in the ministry. Secondly, we see the true character and bravery of these men. They did not just talk the talk, but they also walked the walk. Both men died for what they believed. Many of their followers did also. This was a noble bunch. Thirdly, we see the Roman Church at its lowest point in human history. It had become such a laughingstock among the common populace that discontent was the feeling of the day. So many were disgruntled with the hypocrisy of Rome that when these two men and their preacher friends began to publically herald the pure Gospel, everything from riots to revivals regularly broke out. These two men, and the many baptized believers of their day, truly gave the Devil a black eye, and snatched thousands of souls from his clutches. Rome patiently bided her time until the wretched cult could grab these great men of God and martyr them in a most cruel fashion. History has not forgotten these two men and their influence. Would to God that, like our Bible verse states, we would not let their memory die, but would do everything in our power to share their testimony with the next generation.
1. The Petrobrussians (A.D. 1126)
The sect of the Petrobrussians, followers of Peter de Bruys, born 1093, spread widely in southern France. He was a converted Catholic priest. In doctrine and practice there was close agreement between them and the Waldsenses.
Looking at these groups of Baptists briefly brings to light four from the twelfth century. These congregations were home to some of the boldest Baptist ministers who have ever lived. Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia were both great preachers and great overall leaders of the Baptists.
I know that many critics of our Baptist heritage say, “You have named Montanists, Novationists, Donatists, Vaudois, Cathari, Paterines, Petrobrussians and Arnoldists, but you have not named any group by the title ‘Baptist’, therefore you are just speculating that these were Baptists.” My answer to the critics is we believe that Baptist faith and practice, or a continuation of biblical teachings and distinctives, have existed since the time of Christ. The title Baptist is very important to us because it is the title that God gave His people in the New Testament, but ultimately it is what you believe that determines whether or not you are a Baptist. Therefore what denominational label would you place on someone:
A. Who believed in salvation by grace,
B. Who baptized by immersion upon a profession of faith,
C. Who rejected infant baptism,
D. Who rejected the baptism of anyone coming from the mother of harlots or her offspring,
E. Who believed the Bible to be without error?
The honest answer is: A BAPTIST. According to Ephesians 3:20-21, Matthew 16:18 and Matthew 23:34, Jesus promised the church would stand, suffer and glorify Him THROUGHOUT THE AGES.
In Peter de Bruys and Arnold of Brescia, we clearly see several things. First, we see God’s desire to change people by His grace and then use them in the ministry. Secondly, we see the true character and bravery of these men. They did not just talk the talk, but they also walked the walk. Both men died for what they believed. Many of their followers did also. This was a noble bunch. Thirdly, we see the Roman Church at its lowest point in human history. It had become such a laughingstock among the common populace that discontent was the feeling of the day. So many were disgruntled with the hypocrisy of Rome that when these two men and their preacher friends began to publically herald the pure Gospel, everything from riots to revivals regularly broke out. These two men, and the many baptized believers of their day, truly gave the Devil a black eye, and snatched thousands of souls from his clutches. Rome patiently bided her time until the wretched cult could grab these great men of God and martyr them in a most cruel fashion. History has not forgotten these two men and their influence. Would to God that, like our Bible verse states, we would not let their memory die, but would do everything in our power to share their testimony with the next generation.
1. The Petrobrussians (A.D. 1126)
The sect of the Petrobrussians, followers of Peter de Bruys, born 1093, spread widely in southern France. He was a converted Catholic priest. In doctrine and practice there was close agreement between them and the Waldsenses.
"...Great God Our King!"
The history of this great patriotic hymn is unique. The words were written in 1832 by Samuel Francis Smith, a Baptist theological student. The following interesting anecdote comes at a time when America was still under the English throne."America" is sung to the same tune used in "God Save the King", a popular song in England around 1774. The words to the British anthem originally began "God save our lord the King", and with a revolutionary spirit spreading rampantly in North America, it was decided that "God Save the King" must be sung at all gatherings, such as church meetings.
God save our Lord the King!/Long live our gracious King!/God save the King!
Send him victorious,/Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,/God save our King.
Thy choicest gifts in store,/On him be pleased to pour,/Long may he reign!
May he defend our laws,/And ever give us cause,
To sing, with heart and voice,/God save the King!
Baptists were appalled that they be required to sing a hymn to a man, rather than to God at a worship service. Redcoat soldiers would spy out church services in the colonies to be sure the letter of the law was carried out. However, colonists would sing the verses, ending them with the words "Great God, our King!" rather than "God save the King" (referring to King George), thus changing the entire focus of the song. Samuel Smith later used these adapted words to close out his famous song, "America" (also titled "My Country 'Tis of Thee"). What better song to symbolize what the July 4th celebration is all about? It served as our unofficial anthem until "The Star-Spangled Banner" was officially adopted in 1931.
My country, 'tis of thee,/Sweet land of liberty,/Of thee I sing;
Land where my fathers died,/Land of the pilgrims' pride,
From every mountainside/Let freedom ring!
My native country, thee,/Land of the noble free,/Thy name I love;
I love thy rocks and rills,Thy woods and templed hills;
My heart with rapture thrills,/Like that above.
Our fathers' God to Thee,Author of liberty,/To Thee we sing.
Long may our land be bright,/With freedom's holy light,
Protect us by Thy might,/Great God our King.
Non-Baptist Christians?
While some Baptists understand the absurdity of making a distinction between church history and Baptist history many would still refer to non-Baptist believers as Christians. I don’t believe that you can be a Christian without being a Baptist. I did not say you can’t be saved without being a Baptist and that would be absurd because you cannot become a Baptist until being baptized after salvation. The question must be asked, “What is a Christian?”. A Christian is not just one that trusts Christ as their Savior. A Christian is one who is a follower of Christ – including AFTER salvation. May I say that one who gets saved and then backslides or never grows in the Lord is not a Christian. They may have trusted in Christ but they are not following Christ in their life. To be a Christian is to follow the ways and teachings of Christ. How could a believer be a Christian without being a member of the institution of the local church which He started? How could a saved Methodist be a Christian with their infant baptism? How could a Pentecostal believer be a Christian with their speaking in tongues? How could a Church of Christ member be called a Christian when they are trusting in baptism for salvation? How could a Presbyterian believer be a Christian when they don’t believe in eternal security and practice sprinkling? Being a Christian is more than believing in Christ and going to a church that historically believes in Christ instead of other gods. As Spurgeon said, “We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians.” As Baptists we don’t treat the polity of new testament churches as optional suggestions and we don’t add to our practices the contradictory writings and creeds of men. If Jesus were physically on earth today he would be a member of a Baptist church because a (true) Baptist church is a practical copy and an actual descendant of the church that Christ started during His earthly ministry. Don’t be ashamed my brethren, only Baptists are Christians.Source: baptistbyconviction.wordpress.com
Online Baptist History Resources
Pastor David Peterman has been a member here for some time now. He has a blog that includes: "'Online Baptist History' portion of my personal blog. There are more than 30 Baptist History books posted there. Some have downloadable PDF. versions listed online for FREE! Baptists today know shamefully little about thier own heritage, here is a FREE resource for you!"Check it out on his blog at http://revonator.wordpress.com/free-online-baptist-history-resources/
"When Did Jesus Die?" or "The Myth of Good Friday"
"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." - Matthew 12:40
Now you might be better at mathematics than I (this is not saying much), but even you can not put three days and nights (even it you switch the order to the more Jewish "nights and days") between a Good Friday crucifixion and an Easter Sunday resurrection.
The Catholic tradition of Jesus dying on a Friday can be largely blamed on a misunderstanding of the word "sabbath". "Six days shall work be done: but the seventh day is the sabbath of rest, an holy convocation; ye shall do no work therein: it is the sabbath of the LORD in all your dwellings." - Leviticus 23:3
If you looked at this passage in Mark chapter fifteen, assuming that the "sabbath" meant "Saturday", a burial on Friday would be the only logical conclusion: "And now when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathaea, an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God, came, and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus." - Mark 15:42-43
But what if your idea of the sabbath always meaning the seventh day, was incorrect? What if there was more than one type of sabbath in the Bible? What if you thought of "sabbath" as meaning a "holy day when no work was allowed"? There are other sabbaths, relating to the Hebrew Feasts, described in Leviticus 23:4-44. While the Passover is not a sabbath day when no work is allowed to be done ("an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein"), there are days besides Saturday alone that are sabbath days.
B.R. Lakin
Bascom Ray Lakin, Baptist PreacherBorn: January 5, 1901 near Fort Gay, West Virginia
Died: March 15, 1984 in Lynchburg, Virginia
Born to Mr. and Mrs. Richard Lakin in a farmhouse on Big Hurricane Creek, B. R. Lakin had been asked for from the Lord by a praying mother, who asked God for a "preacher man". He attended a one-room schoolhouse only through fourth grade, but later in life attended Moody Bible Institute while pastoring several churches.
Lakin became a Christian by accepting Jesus Christ as his Saviour in 1919, at a revival that was being held by J.C. Simphins in a country Baptist church. Within a week he had preached his first sermon. During the 1920s he served as circuit-riding preacher, riding a mule to country churches near the forks of the Big Sandy River, through the mountains and foothills of rural West Virginia and Kentucky. His first pastorate was Evangel Baptist Church at Greenbriar Creek, where he was paid $7 a month. He eventually assisted for two years at the Cadle Tabernacle in Indianapolis, Indiana, and upon E. Howard Cadle's death, became the Senior Pastor for the nest twelve years, continuing the long running daily radio program, “Nation’s Family Prayer Period".
B.R. Lakin was married to the former Violet Crabtree on August 30, 1922. They only had one son, William. William passed away on March 27, 1955 as the result of a car accident. William Lakin was survived by his wife and son. B.R. Lakins grandson, Ronald, assisted him throughout the rest of his ministry.
In 1952, Dr. Lakin resigned as pastor of Cadle Tabernacle to go into full-time evangelism, which he continued in until just before his death in 1984. Although he referred to himself as "just a country preacher", he traveled fifty thousand miles each year and preached to an average of four thousand people per week. He was a staff evangelist for Thomas Road Baptist Church in Lynchburg, Virginia. Lakin's sermons were a combination of wit, Bible teaching, and a strong Gospel appeal.
Sermons by B.R. Lakin can still be heard, on websites such as this.
My Blog and a new page dedicated to Baptist History
Hello, I am David Peterman. I am the pastor of Christ Independent Baptist Church in inner-city Philadelphia. I have a blog that I post my sermons and outlines on called "The Lord's Voice Crieth to the City". This blog is enrolled in your blogroll, but doesnt seem to automatically update (maybe because it is Word Press and not Blogger.com?).
I welcome you to check out my blog, specifically for a new page I have made dedicated to Baptist History. You can view the page here.
So many today are ignorant of our our Baptist Heritage. I pray that the books linked on my site may be used of the Lord to remedy that. We certianly have a "goodly heritage"!
-Pastor Dave
I welcome you to check out my blog, specifically for a new page I have made dedicated to Baptist History. You can view the page here.
So many today are ignorant of our our Baptist Heritage. I pray that the books linked on my site may be used of the Lord to remedy that. We certianly have a "goodly heritage"!
-Pastor Dave
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)