I like how you pointed out that arguing or fighting over those matters are a luxury of peace time. We haven’t been in a time of peace in this nation since the early days of Billy Graham era.
It was great to see you at the FLF conference, brother! If nothing else, this topic has given y'all here and at FLF plenty of content! Let iron continue to sharpen iron! Thanks for all you do!
Serious question. Is God bringing in a great number of Jews Ro. 11:29 before the consummation of all things a form of dispensationalism? Just a post- mil version. Again I appreciate your ministry!
@@sbjdare1958 Great question. Yes, I and many other Postmil guys believe there will be a large amount of Jews that come into the kingdom before the end. And that this revival among the Jews will kickstart a further revival among all the nations. Doug Wilson is an example of someone who holds this view.
Brother, thank you for the content you provide, I’ve recently been listening with some frequency. Just for clarify, are you saying that there is a category of person that is covenantally united to Christ but not necessarily saved? Thank you.
@@antenglish1 I think maybe an analogy would be be an illegal alien living in the US who reaps benefits from being here. He can have access to housing, government programs, make minimum wage, and other things that he would not experience or benefit in his war torn home country, but when he gets caught and checked for ID and it is found that he is illegal, he will be thrown out of the country for he is not truly a citizen. Though he reaped som benefits of living in the land. (Also let's pretend for this analogy that our government was upholding the constitution and actually exercising these laws. We all know that that is definitely not happening. But for the sake of the analogy)
Just as circumcised Jews in the OT had a real connection to the covenant people and the blessings and responsibilities thereof yet not having the root of the matter in them so in the new covenant we have baptized Christians (in a broad sense) who also are in the same situation not having the root of the matter in them. Understanding this reality was crucial for me in getting my head around so many of the apostasy passages in scripture. In my journey of becoming reformed it also helped clarify covenant baptism as well. The practice of credo only baptism doesn't in anyway eliminate the issue it is a reality for both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.
Joel, I really appreciate your ministry and how you address the differences. Can I ask, why don’t baptist churches take communion every Sunday? I’ve been to some as a guest when traveling, but most of the independent and SBCs only recognize the Lord’s Supper quarterly. Maybe this is a question for your Monday program.
Here is what one of the early Church fathers wrote about Christ in the sacraments. They seemed to take a different view then what the Baptist Church teaches. "For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165). We can see here that this view that the Body and blood of Christ are merely symbolic was not what the early Church taught, as what the Baptist church teaches today is not what was handed down by the Apostles in their teachings.
@@dman7668 you have to be careful because the early church fathers had some stuff in their theology that was off too. Just because there was an early view doesn't necessarily mean it was right. We have to measure everything against the scriptures. The patristics have some great teachings and also some that aren't so great. I'm not speaking of anything specific in this comment but just in general.
@Chris Johnson We don't go by scripture alone Chris. That's wrong and the Bible doesn't teach it. Also, we can't just ignore the early Church Father's on the subject of Jesus being the blessed sacrament. This has always been been what the Church taught , the Baptist Church contradicts what the fathers wrote on this subject, and this does prove what the Baptist Church teaches is not only false but actually heretical. They understood the faith better then any Baptist preacher does today with Bible in hand, and they obviously didn't hand down a faith that was Baptist in it's views. The baptist position is without a doubt, beyond any responsible doubt, false.
First and foremost we need to be imitators of Christ! Yes He battled sin and won, but that doesn't mean we are supposed to sit back & do nothing! """ Be imitators!!!""" Have you ever noticed what Rev 12:17,14:12 & 20:4 have in common? They all tell you that the saints will have both God's commands Aaannd the testimony of Jesus. 20:4 tells you that those that do will reign with the Messiah for 1,000 years. That is why the apostles all kept the Torah...even after His ascension. Not perfectly but they did it....they knew the importance of having both and hopefully you do too!
@@RightResponseMinistries I am interested in your view if you would 🤗. As for myself, all of the forging of the various eschatological camps would seem to also pertain to that category. Not sure why there is such emphasis on what non-essentials divide us versus what we have in common as believers.
@@solideomusical Yes, eschatology matters and it must be talked about. However, if a Premil or Amil guy wants to team up with me to apply all of Christ for all of life, we can certainly partner.
The one sanctified is Christ. This is the better reformed baptist interpretation. " But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, - to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office. (Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews" v1-10 The repetitive sacrifices of the old covenant have been done away with by the establishment of Christ’s once for all sacrifice v11-17 This one sacrifice has perfected for all time those who received the blessings of the new covenant. v18 There remains no more sacrifices in the new covenant. v19-25 Therefore draw near to God with full assurance, holding fast our confession of faith. v26 For if we neglect this confession of faith and go on sinning willingly, there are no more repetitive sacrifices to repeatedly forgive your sin, like in the old covenant. v27 Only judgement remains for adversaries. v28 Reminding these Jews who felt secure in the Old Covenant of the punishments under the Old Covenant. Despite old covenant sacrifices, there were still some deliberate, high-handed sins that were punished without mercy (thus don’t test God’s mercy). v29 How much worse will your punishment be if you despise the gospel. v30 God was a fierce judge, even in the Old Covenant that you cling to. “Vengeance is mine” comes from Deut 32:35 and “The Lord will judge his people” from the next v36. Neither of these should be interpreted to mean the new covenant contains curses like the old covenant. They are simply establishing the fact, from the Old Covenant the Jews were clinging to, that God is a fierce judge. Owen: “In Deuteronomy it is applied unto such a judgment of them as tends unto their deliverance. But the general truth of the words is, that God is the supreme judge, “he is judge himself, ” Psalm 50:6. This the apostle makes use of, concluding that the righteousness of God, as the supreme judge of all, obligeth him unto this severe destruction of apostates: for “shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” This is precisely how Paul applies the same verse (to those outside of covenant) in Romans 12:19. v31 Fear the living God (who is judge over all). Nothing in this passage requires us to believe that apostates were once members of the New Covenant but have been cut off or that this judgment and punishment is a New Covenant curse. Quite the contrary, it is clearly referring to the final judgment. The apostates discussed here are specifically referred to as “adversaries” (v27) not as God’s covenant people.
i agree wholeheartedly that our salvation is not a contract but rather a covenant. I believe that the cross of Jesus was Jesus way of saying will you marry me and the two shall become one in truth and spirit. Holy spirit which is Jesus becoming one with you just like in the covenant of marriage. Its def not a contract in the sense of whats best for me. simply believe and you will be saved. no doesn't work like that. The spirit must birth you in order for you to even see the kingdom let alone enter the kingdom.
Diatheke is a contract. It’s also translated testament. The contract that Jesus made was a last will and testament that went in force when the testator died. That’s a contract. It was customary of the Jews to act out their contracts. That’s what Jesus did at the last Passover.
@@aletheia8054 again salvation is not a contract. You spending an eternity in heaven is not based on you believing and then you can live anyway you want. No it's based on a heart relationship with you and God. His spirit dwells in you.
@@aletheia8054 please stop talking you are making yourself sound like a fool. Go look up the difference between a contract and a covenant. If you can't tell me the difference between the two then don't comment on my comment.
Not making a infant baptism is denying your children to the God’s covenant, therefore it is not small matter but it’s big difference between baptist and Reformers, and historically, John Calvin , John Knox , most of them were agreed about infant baptism. Reformed Baptist? Such name is not right .
theres NO such thing as a "Reformed Baptist". any presbyterian theologian would affirm such and any true Baptist would as well. the Reformed Churches affirm state/church binds, infant baptism, hierarchical church govt., sacramental theology, and covenant theology (that salvation runs thru family lines), and affrim the nicene creed which affirms baptismal regeneration, and the chalcedonian creed which refers to mary as the Mother of God. NO baptist of any kind would affirm ANY of these doctrines, INCLUDING the original churches which adhered to the 1689 confession. "Reformed" Baptists are just presbyterians that immerse. just go ahead and be presbyterian and stop the foolishness. the oppression and murder of baptists under the Reformed churches should tesyify that we have very different origins, and doctrines. the "Reformed" Baptists would much rather fellowship presbyterians than they would a non calvinist Baptist. that oughta tell u somethin. Reformed churches are "catholic churches that have been reformed". Baptists were never in the catholic church, hence as Spurgeon said ""We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men". (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225). "History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II to those of Elizabeth we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied; and Newington sees other scenes from Sabbath to Sabbath. As I think of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder - what a growth! As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I may well say, What hath God wrought! Our history forbids discouragement." (From the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1881, Vol. 27, page 249.)
@@recalltolife3478 agreed. most of them know, but they refuse to acknowledge. some think because they agree with john calvin on some things soteriologically, that it makes them "reformed" but that is ludicrous. by that way of thinking, it'd make me catholic because i agree with catholics that Jesus was virgin born. having some points of agreement just means we are reading the same book, but it doesnt mean we are getting the same message. they even use the word "sacrament" for baptism and communion, which no real Baptist would ever do. they use a presbyterian hymnal. they wanna be presbyterian so bad, but they just cant make the jump because of differences over baptism. they dont understand that being "reformed" isnt just the "predestination" doctrines. the cumberland presbyterians are reformed but that totally deny unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistable grace. they believe any and all persons can be saved, yet they are still "reformed" because of all the other doctrines. while we can be friendly towards other believers, it baffles me why youd wanna take the name of the very churches that burned your forefathers at the stake
I’m a PCA pastor and enjoy your channel. Thank you for your content. The Lord be with you.
Really appreciate that. Thank you brother.
Thank you Pastor Joel.
Certainly credit the (good) Presbyterian) church for giving us RC Sproul, John Knox, John Flavel, & Eric Liddell.
I'm a Reformed Baptist but I use Dr. Sproul's Study Bible.
I didn’t know he has a study Bible I’m gonna have to check that out
Thanks!
I like how you pointed out that arguing or fighting over those matters are a luxury of peace time. We haven’t been in a time of peace in this nation since the early days of Billy Graham era.
Arguing about predestination is also a luxury. We need all orthodox Christians working together right now
It was great to see you at the FLF conference, brother! If nothing else, this topic has given y'all here and at FLF plenty of content! Let iron continue to sharpen iron! Thanks for all you do!
Amen!
Serious question. Is God bringing in a great number of Jews Ro. 11:29 before the consummation of all things a form of dispensationalism? Just a post- mil version. Again I appreciate your ministry!
@@sbjdare1958 Great question. Yes, I and many other Postmil guys believe there will be a large amount of Jews that come into the kingdom before the end. And that this revival among the Jews will kickstart a further revival among all the nations. Doug Wilson is an example of someone who holds this view.
Thanks so much for this explanation!!
This was very well said and was great to reflect upon.
Amen
Great
Brother, thank you for the content you provide, I’ve recently been listening with some frequency. Just for clarify, are you saying that there is a category of person that is covenantally united to Christ but not necessarily saved? Thank you.
No. I am a Particular Baptist. There is no way in which a person can have covenantal union with Christ apart from faith and salvation.
I don’t see how one can be sanctified by the blood of the covenant and not be in the covenant in some external sense.
@@antenglish1 I think maybe an analogy would be be an illegal alien living in the US who reaps benefits from being here. He can have access to housing, government programs, make minimum wage, and other things that he would not experience or benefit in his war torn home country, but when he gets caught and checked for ID and it is found that he is illegal, he will be thrown out of the country for he is not truly a citizen. Though he reaped som benefits of living in the land.
(Also let's pretend for this analogy that our government was upholding the constitution and actually exercising these laws. We all know that that is definitely not happening. But for the sake of the analogy)
Just as circumcised Jews in the OT had a real connection to the covenant people and the blessings and responsibilities thereof yet not having the root of the matter in them so in the new covenant we have baptized Christians (in a broad sense) who also are in the same situation not having the root of the matter in them.
Understanding this reality was crucial for me in getting my head around so many of the apostasy passages in scripture. In my journey of becoming reformed it also helped clarify covenant baptism as well.
The practice of credo only baptism doesn't in anyway eliminate the issue it is a reality for both Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists.
Joel, I really appreciate your ministry and how you address the differences. Can I ask, why don’t baptist churches take communion every Sunday? I’ve been to some as a guest when traveling, but most of the independent and SBCs only recognize the Lord’s Supper quarterly. Maybe this is a question for your Monday program.
Fantastic question. My church practices weekly communion. In general, Baptists just seem to have a lower view of the sacraments.
Here is what one of the early Church fathers wrote about Christ in the sacraments. They seemed to take a different view then what the Baptist Church teaches.
"For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (A.D. 110-165).
We can see here that this view that the Body and blood of Christ are merely symbolic was not what the early Church taught, as what the Baptist church teaches today is not what was handed down by the Apostles in their teachings.
@@dman7668 you have to be careful because the early church fathers had some stuff in their theology that was off too. Just because there was an early view doesn't necessarily mean it was right. We have to measure everything against the scriptures. The patristics have some great teachings and also some that aren't so great. I'm not speaking of anything specific in this comment but just in general.
@Chris Johnson
We don't go by scripture alone Chris. That's wrong and the Bible doesn't teach it. Also, we can't just ignore the early Church Father's on the subject of Jesus being the blessed sacrament. This has always been been what the Church taught , the Baptist Church contradicts what the fathers wrote on this subject, and this does prove what the Baptist Church teaches is not only false but actually heretical.
They understood the faith better then any Baptist preacher does today with Bible in hand, and they obviously didn't hand down a faith that was Baptist in it's views. The baptist position is without a doubt, beyond any responsible doubt, false.
@ 1:00 mark, who is the enemy at the door?
If I am not mistaken, the validity of an A Fortiori argument depends on the logical, categorical progression from the first proposition to the second.
Early Fam!
PS: Maybe you can get Leighton Flowers on your show!
😂
Would you let's dispensationalists join your church assembly?
Yes, we have some.
First and foremost we need to be imitators of Christ!
Yes He battled sin and won, but that doesn't mean we are supposed to sit back & do nothing! """ Be imitators!!!"""
Have you ever noticed what Rev 12:17,14:12 & 20:4 have in common?
They all tell you that the saints will have both God's commands Aaannd the testimony of Jesus.
20:4 tells you that those that do will reign with the Messiah for 1,000 years.
That is why the apostles all kept the Torah...even after His ascension.
Not perfectly but they did it....they knew the importance of having both and hopefully you do too!
What other arguments fit into the 'luxury in times of peace' category?
Great question. What do you think?
@@RightResponseMinistries I am interested in your view if you would 🤗. As for myself, all of the forging of the various eschatological camps would seem to also pertain to that category. Not sure why there is such emphasis on what non-essentials divide us versus what we have in common as believers.
@@solideomusical Yes, eschatology matters and it must be talked about. However, if a Premil or Amil guy wants to team up with me to apply all of Christ for all of life, we can certainly partner.
The one sanctified is Christ. This is the better reformed baptist interpretation. " But the design of the apostle in the context leads plainly to another application of these words. It is Christ himself that is spoken of, who was sanctified and dedicated unto God to be an eternal high priest, by the blood of the covenant which he offered unto God, as I have showed before. The priests of old were dedicated and sanctified unto their office by another, and the sacrifices which he offered for them; they could not sanctify themselves: so were Aaron and his sons sanctified by Moses, antecedently unto their offering any sacrifice themselves. But no outward act of men or angels could unto this purpose pass on the Son of God. He was to be the priest himself, the sacrificer himself, - to dedicate, consecrate, and sanctify himself, by his own sacrifice, in concurrence with the actings of God the Father in his suffering. See John 17:19; Hebrews 2:10, 5:7, 9, 9:11, 12. That precious blood of Christ, wherein or whereby he was sanctified, and dedicated unto God as the eternal high priest of the church, this they esteemed “an unholy thing;” that is, such as would have no such effect as to consecrate him unto God and his office. (Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews"
v1-10 The repetitive sacrifices of the old covenant have been done away with by the establishment of Christ’s once for all sacrifice
v11-17 This one sacrifice has perfected for all time those who received the blessings of the new covenant.
v18 There remains no more sacrifices in the new covenant.
v19-25 Therefore draw near to God with full assurance, holding fast our confession of faith.
v26 For if we neglect this confession of faith and go on sinning willingly, there are no more repetitive sacrifices to repeatedly forgive your sin, like in the old covenant.
v27 Only judgement remains for adversaries.
v28 Reminding these Jews who felt secure in the Old Covenant of the punishments under the Old Covenant. Despite old covenant sacrifices, there were still some deliberate, high-handed sins that were punished without mercy (thus don’t test God’s mercy).
v29 How much worse will your punishment be if you despise the gospel.
v30 God was a fierce judge, even in the Old Covenant that you cling to. “Vengeance is mine” comes from Deut 32:35 and “The Lord will judge his people” from the next v36. Neither of these should be interpreted to mean the new covenant contains curses like the old covenant. They are simply establishing the fact, from the Old Covenant the Jews were clinging to, that God is a fierce judge. Owen: “In Deuteronomy it is applied unto such a judgment of them as tends unto their deliverance. But the general truth of the words is, that God is the supreme judge, “he is judge himself, ” Psalm 50:6. This the apostle makes use of, concluding that the righteousness of God, as the supreme judge of all, obligeth him unto this severe destruction of apostates: for “shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” This is precisely how Paul applies the same verse (to those outside of covenant) in Romans 12:19.
v31 Fear the living God (who is judge over all).
Nothing in this passage requires us to believe that apostates were once members of the New Covenant but have been cut off or that this judgment and punishment is a New Covenant curse. Quite the contrary, it is clearly referring to the final judgment. The apostates discussed here are specifically referred to as “adversaries” (v27) not as God’s covenant people.
There is a new documentary from the Presbyterians on Baptists is very scathing...from Ancient paths TV. Please do a review of it.
this message did not make sense. I dont agree.
Another conference.
i agree wholeheartedly that our salvation is not a contract but rather a covenant. I believe that the cross of Jesus was Jesus way of saying will you marry me and the two shall become one in truth and spirit. Holy spirit which is Jesus becoming one with you just like in the covenant of marriage. Its def not a contract in the sense of whats best for me. simply believe and you will be saved. no doesn't work like that. The spirit must birth you in order for you to even see the kingdom let alone enter the kingdom.
Diatheke is a contract. It’s also translated testament. The contract that Jesus made was a last will and testament that went in force when the testator died. That’s a contract.
It was customary of the Jews to act out their contracts. That’s what Jesus did at the last Passover.
@@aletheia8054 again salvation is not a contract. You spending an eternity in heaven is not based on you believing and then you can live anyway you want. No it's based on a heart relationship with you and God. His spirit dwells in you.
@@The300ZXGuru Diatheke is a contact
@@The300ZXGuru The new covenant is a new contract. Hebrews 7, 8 and 9
@@aletheia8054 please stop talking you are making yourself sound like a fool. Go look up the difference between a contract and a covenant. If you can't tell me the difference between the two then don't comment on my comment.
Not making a infant baptism is denying your children to the God’s covenant, therefore it is not small matter but it’s big difference between baptist and Reformers, and historically, John Calvin , John Knox , most of them were agreed about infant baptism. Reformed Baptist? Such name is not right .
theres NO such thing as a "Reformed Baptist". any presbyterian theologian would affirm such and any true Baptist would as well. the Reformed Churches affirm state/church binds, infant baptism, hierarchical church govt., sacramental theology, and covenant theology (that salvation runs thru family lines), and affrim the nicene creed which affirms baptismal regeneration, and the chalcedonian creed which refers to mary as the Mother of God. NO baptist of any kind would affirm ANY of these doctrines, INCLUDING the original churches which adhered to the 1689 confession. "Reformed" Baptists are just presbyterians that immerse. just go ahead and be presbyterian and stop the foolishness. the oppression and murder of baptists under the Reformed churches should tesyify that we have very different origins, and doctrines. the "Reformed" Baptists would much rather fellowship presbyterians than they would a non calvinist Baptist. that oughta tell u somethin. Reformed churches are "catholic churches that have been reformed". Baptists were never in the catholic church, hence as Spurgeon said
""We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther or Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the very days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel underground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor I believe any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with the government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men". (From The New Park Street Pulpit, Vol.VII, Page 225).
"History has hitherto been written by our enemies, who never would have kept a single fact about us upon the record if they could have helped it, and yet it leaks out every now and then that certain poor people called Anabaptists were brought up for condemnation. From the days of Henry II to those of Elizabeth we hear of certain unhappy heretics who were hated of all men for the truth's sake which was in them. We read of poor men and women, with their garments cut short, turned out into the fields to perish in the cold, and anon of others who were burnt at Newington for the crime of Anabaptism. Long before your Protestants were known of, these horrible Anabaptists, as they were unjustly called, were protesting for the 'one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.' No sooner did the visible church begin to depart from the gospel than these men arose to keep fast by the good old way. The priests and monks wished for peace and slumber, but there was always a Baptist or a Lollard tickling men's ears with holy Scriptures, and calling their attention to the errors of the times. They were a poor persecuted tribe. The halter was thought to be too good for them. At times ill-written history would have us think that they died out, so well had the wolf done his work on the sheep. Yet here we are, blessed and multiplied; and Newington sees other scenes from Sabbath to Sabbath.
As I think of your numbers and efforts, I can only say in wonder - what a growth! As I think of the multitudes of our brethren in America, I may well say, What hath God wrought! Our history forbids discouragement." (From the Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, 1881, Vol. 27, page 249.)
This is too little known and if known ignored by "reformed" Baptists.
@@recalltolife3478 agreed. most of them know, but they refuse to acknowledge. some think because they agree with john calvin on some things soteriologically, that it makes them "reformed" but that is ludicrous. by that way of thinking, it'd make me catholic because i agree with catholics that Jesus was virgin born. having some points of agreement just means we are reading the same book, but it doesnt mean we are getting the same message. they even use the word "sacrament" for baptism and communion, which no real Baptist would ever do. they use a presbyterian hymnal. they wanna be presbyterian so bad, but they just cant make the jump because of differences over baptism. they dont understand that being "reformed" isnt just the "predestination" doctrines. the cumberland presbyterians are reformed but that totally deny unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistable grace. they believe any and all persons can be saved, yet they are still "reformed" because of all the other doctrines. while we can be friendly towards other believers, it baffles me why youd wanna take the name of the very churches that burned your forefathers at the stake
Protestantism cannot tell you what it is.
Do you hear secound Baptism in presbaterian its means belive in christ