[pastorsforum] RE: [PastorsForum] distorted history

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : May 2006 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: "Pastor David Warner" <dwarner@...>
Date: Thu, 25 May 2006 10:49:04 -0400
Thanks Derick, for your thoughts on this.  Do you believe that the writings
of religious people down through history were burned or destroyed by the
state churches or "official" churches at various times and in various
places?  Do you think there is any evidence of this?  Do you think people
died at the hands of "the religious establishment" by a variety of tortuous
means because of their beliefs and practices?  Answering these questions
might help me better understand your position.

You brought up "landmarkists."  Do you know where they came from?  Well,
after Mr. Whitsitt refused to admit his error he was dismissed from Southern
Baptist Seminary in 1898.  He was dismissed because he was living off the
sacrifices of the Baptist people who paid his salary while he sought to make
Protestants out of Baptists which was contrary to history.  However, his
"antichristian forgery" became accepted after his death.  His "English
Descent Theory" became the official stance of the Southern Baptist
Convention.  In 1905, a large number of Baptists disagreed with the Whitsitt
stance, withdrew from the convention and formed the American Baptist
Association. (Landmark Baptist)

You mention believer's baptism as a belief held by some of these groups but
there was so much more you didn't mention.  What denominational label would
you place on someone who believed in salvation by grace, who baptized by
immersion upon a profession of faith, who believed the Bible to be without
error and believed in a regenerate church membership?  Let's go back, let's
say to 15000 A.D., and see what religious group you would call them.  You
already know what I call them.   Would you say they were Catholic?  Luther
hadn't come on the scene yet so there wasn't any real protest within the
Catholic church and therefore no protestants.  So what would you call them?

Derick, I appreciate the way you at least stay on track and deal with the
issue.  So many go berserk in their opposition they can't seem to focus on
the topic.  While we may disagree I do want to note that from you.  Thanks.

David Warner





 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Derick R. Dickens [mailto:Derick@...] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 10:09 AM
> To: pastorsforum@...
> Subject: Re: [PastorsForum] distorted history
> 
> David,
> 
> There is no doubt that some would distort history.  That is 
> concievable. 
> What is not concievable is that the number of required 
> distortions plus the years of those distortions, plus, the 
> insistence of modern landmarkists to insist that despite no 
> evidence of distortion, we must hold to a distortion.  When 
> you add all this up you must conclude that at best these 
> other groups "MAY not be heretics".  Yet, to conclude that 
> these groups "MUST be Baptists" is fantasy when you have no 
> evidence.  One doctrine, which is all we know of some of 
> these groups, does not a Baptist make.  A person could 
> believe in believers Baptism (as some did) but also deny the 
> Trinity... that person is not a Baptist.  Yet, what some half 
> hearted theologians have done is assumed that since they 
> believe in believers Baptism they also believe in all the 
> other forms of orthodoxy. 
> That is a stretch.
> 
> Derick
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: 
> pastorsforum-unsubscribe@...
> 
> "In essential things, unity; in non-essential things, 
> liberty; and in all things, charity."
>