(11) Baptist History - General Baptists and Particular Baptists in 17th Century England
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- If you have enjoyed this class, please visit www.fairhavenclasses.org.
Here, you can find more information about our online class program, and how you can earn your Associate in Bible degree online. Whether you are a pastor or a layman wanting to increase your Bible knowledge, a teacher desiring to refine your teaching methods, or someone who is curious about a certain course being offered, we encourage you to register today and begin working toward your degree, and more importantly, furthering your knowledge of the Bible.
I am interested in learning about the histories of other Christian traditions/denominations. I am Catholic since I got baptized in the Church when I was a baby, though I converted somewhat later on to Baptist, then I went back to the Catholic Church. This kinds of topics interest me so much. God bless you all!
Your infant Baptism without personal faith in Christ made you run to and fro. Never ever practice baby baptism.
@@soreichithung6383OIKOS covenant baptism has been the standard for all baptisms since the church started 2000 years ago
To sum it all up: general baptists believed the atonement of Christ was for everybody; the moderates were arminian, while the extremists ended up in socinianism or universalism.
The particular baptists believed Christ only died for the elect; the moderates were calvinist, while the extremists were hyper-calvinist or even fatalist (therefore no great motivation for mission among them). Paradoxically, great missionaries like Jonathan Edwards and William Carey were particular baptists.
You totally wiffed on Edwards and Carey. Good try, though.
@@chriscravens8318 I'm only now learning about these things. My comment was meant to be more like a bookmark for myself (I want to be able to find this particular information in a list of 40 videos, each of them 40 mins long). Not trying to prove anything, I'm here to learn. God bless you.
My name's Dan (wife's account). I enjoyed this, and liked how unbiased and balanced it is. I would like to give a small critique if that's ok. I think maybe it was just stumbling over words since they both begin with uni-, but there were a few times unitarianism was used interchangeably with universalism, but they are two separate topics. I do understand that many falsely hold to both, and were influenced by each other. But when speaking of the opposite ends of the spectrum, I think you meant hyper-Calvinism vs. universalism, whereas unitarianism is solely a topic about a rejection of the Trinity, and not about the atonement. Is this correct?
Eating, divorcing and killing
@@jesussaves8929 huh?
You state that it is good that James authorized, by government, the kjv and also do not mention the imprisonment and murder of Helwys, whom started the first Baptist Church.
Have you read 'Orthodox Radicals: Baptist Identity in the English Revolution' by Matthew Bingham?
Short history... the church started 2000 years ago 😮
There seems to be confusion about Cromwell and Baptists. He had contempt for the Church of England. Read and research what he did at Saffron Walden parish church and Lambeth Palace.
@Nancy
6:38 that is incorrect, John Smyth did not know about the existence of the mennonites at the time he switched to credobaptism. That is also the reason why he baptised himself. He did not just copied anabaptists. He held to credobaptism before knowing them. When he met with mennonites he left his congregation and tried to join them and never came back to England.
Edit:
it wasn’t worth to write this comment. I though this was just some remote error, but no, the whole vide is BS 😂😂. When it comes to universalists, unitarians, Michael Servetus and Faustus Socinus you can see this guy has no idea what he is talking about. Servetus could not have been influenced by Lelio Sozzini because Servetus was a non-trinytarian since the 1530’s while Lelios’ beliefs developed only 10 years later.
Also Socinians are not universalists, they believe in eternal hell, only in america universalists and unitarians came together. In Europe unitarians were not universalists.
He didn't leave his congregation, he tried to merge his church with them. Helwy who co-founded his church was in contact with the wetlanders before the first Baptist church. To say that Baptist just coincidentally have the same name and theological views and that many of the founders were literal anabaptists like Roger Williams but at the same time Baptist didn't know about Anabaptists or get our beliefs from them is preposterous, wouldn't fly in any other area of history and only comes from Protestants trying bring us into the same boat as them.
Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.
Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on TH-cam, which shows the real causes of Christian sects and atheism. The video reveals a prophecy about the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the end of the world. Watching this video will bring joy to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).
I'll take any examples of the gifts from church history
Matthew 16.18
@@bigtobacco1098 You referring to Matthew 16.18 probably want to say that the Church of Christ was to exist forever, but this is only a popular misconception, for it is based on a misinterpretation of Jesus' words: *"I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."*
These words of Jesus do not mean that Christ's church was not to die. Jesus also died when He was crucified, but that doesn't mean death overcame Him, does it? Of course not, because Christ rose from the dead and thereby conquered death. As it is written: "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it." (Acts 2:24). This is what happened to the Church.
The gates of hell are death, and hell is a dwelling place for the dead. So the words *"I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"* indicate that the Church was to die, go to hell, and then rise again as Christ did. After all, one can only defeat death (escape from the gates of hell that hold the dead) by dying and rising again and in no other way.
To show more clearly the meaning of the words *"the gates of hell shall not prevail"* let us imagine a gate that separates one space from another, the abode of the dead from the living. If the Church were alive to this day, she would be on this side, outside the gates of hell, and she would have no contact with the gates of hell, and accordingly the question, "Will the gates of hell prevail over the Church?" would not be asked. because the gates of hell (death) only have power over the dead.
The statement that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church makes sense only if the Church gets beyond the gates, into the abode of the dead, and then the gates of hell will not be able to hold Her, She will escape through the gates of hell, through the resurrection. Just as Christ could not be defeated by the gates of hell and was resurrected on the third day, so the Church will be resurrected, but it will happen before the End of the World.
Just the death and resurrection of the Church reveals the great mystery of Christ and the Church, which the Apostle Paul speaks of when he draws an interesting parallel between the relationship between husband and wife and Christ and the Church. *“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church."* (Ephesians 5:31-32).
The true essence of the integrity of Christ and the Church is that Jesus and the Church were to live the same life as husband and wife according to the *"two are one flesh."* And if they crucified Christ, they later crucified His Church. It could not have been expected otherwise. The world could not be cruel to Christ and benevolent to the Church, for the principle of integrity two are one flesh would be violated.
But the most important and joyful thing is that the Church is one with Christ both in persecution, suffering, and death and in resurrection. As Jesus was crucified and on the third day risen, so will happen to the Church. *"This is a great mystery..."* is revealed in a true understanding of the principle "two are one flesh," which means that the Church as Christ had to go from Calvary to the Resurrection.
@@edvardzv5660 ummm... wow...
What kind of audience is this? He is so funny, and no one laughs
Baptist
.
The difference between Baptist and Methodist is the Methodist can read.
We are the one and only true Landmark Baptist Bride believer
You are a cult member.
this is very inaccurate!
Christ died for all. It's a who so ever will type salvation. Just like it says in John 3:16 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Whoever repents, stops continuing to live in sin is born again and believes in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit with all his heart shall be saved and have eternal life.
Christ's atonement was clearly for all.
Patrickscalling for all or for all whom will believe?
@@triggerwarning2982 That's a great question. If you continue to read the next few versus you may find your answer.
@@willIV9962 the answer is actually right there. For the understanding of a text in the New Testament, we need to check the original language in which it was written, namely Koine Greek. It may come as a big surprise to learn that in the original Greek of John 3:16, there is no word corresponding to our English word “whoever.” The word “whoever” is expressing a phrase in Greek which is difficult to express smoothly in English.
Literally, the text reads “in order that every the one believing in Him, not to perish, but have everlasting life.”
It says “every” or “all the ones believing…” That’s hard to express in English. But in essence, it is saying “all the believing ones.” That’s what is being communicated. It is saying that there is no such thing as a believing one who does not receive eternal life, but who perishes. Though our English translation says “whoever believes,” the literal rendering is accurately translated as “every believing one” and the emphasis is NOT AT ALL on the “whosoever,” but on the belief. The ones BELIEVING will not have one consequence, but will have another. They will not perish but will have everlasting life.
Please stop.
Painful. He's just reading the textbook back to the students. They paid for this?