|
|
USER COMMENTS BY “ PIQUED MY INTEREST ” |
|
|
| RECENTLY-COMMENTED SERMONS | More | Last Post | Total |
| · Page 1 · Found: 9 user comments posted recently. |
|
|
 1/8/12 5:08 PM |
| Piqued my interest | | UK | |  |  |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Well Friends, I must bid you all adieu. My brief excursion on these forums has ended.I must say I have enjoyed my time here, even though I had no intention of participating. But I felt RP's historical inaccuracies could not go unchallenged. For anyone who is interested to persue further the historical facts surrounding the struggle for religious freedom in England in the period from the Long Parliament to the Restoration, I cannot recommend highly enough the 4 volume work of W K Jordan entitled "The development of religious toleration in England". This reveals in great detail the desperate attempts by the Scottish Presbys to foist their polity on the English peoples even though there was little or no sympathy in the nation towards them. We find for instance that though the Presbys pretended to try and find accommodation with the Independents, Robert Baillie's correspondence reveals that they were in reality only waiting for the Scottish army to invade England to force a Presbyterian settlement!! I am aware that there is a deeply felt need on the part of some Presbys to rewrite history. But hopefully there are enough of us interested in history to check their attempts. The Lord bless all who seek to maintain biblical and historical truth. Goodbye to you all! |
|
|
| 1/7/12 7:44 PM |
| Piqued my interest | | UK | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
...continuedSuch testimony is quite conclusive. Infant baptism was unknown in the churches until the first part of the third century after Christ. Had it existed before, some trace of, or allusion to it, would have been discovered. But the most labored and learned research has failed to make any such discovery. It should be added that when the baptism of children did begin to be practiced, it was not the baptism of unconscious infants at all; but, as Bunsen declares, of "little growing children, from six to ten years old." He declares that Tertullian, in his opposition to infant baptism, does not say one word of newborn infants." Cyprian, an African bishop, at the close of the third century, urged the baptism of infants proper, because of the regenerating efficacy of the ordinance. He and his associates were the first to take this ground. |
|
|
| 1/7/12 6:26 PM |
| Piqued my interest | | UK | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Presby wrote:
Blah Blah.. You have to go to the right sources. A Presby intent on revising Church history is not a right source!Curcellaeus says : "The baptism of infants in the two first centuries after Christ, was altogether unknown; but in the third and fourth, was allowed by some few. In the fifth and following ages it was generally received." Hippolytus, bishop of Pontus, writing in the first half of the third century, bears this testimony: "We in our days never defended the baptism of children, which in our day had only begun to be practiced in some regions" Bunsen, the learned translator of Hippolytus, declares that infant baptism in the modern sense, "was utterly unknown to the early church, not only down to the end of the second, but indeed to the middle of the third century.'' Salmasius says : "In the two first centuries no one was baptized, except, being instructed in the faith and acquainted with the doctrines of Christ, he was able to profess himself a believer." Curcellaeus says : " The custom of baptizing infants did not begin till the third age after Christ was born. In the former ages no trace of it appears, and it was introduced without the command of Christ” ....to be continued |
|
|
| 1/7/12 3:42 PM |
| Piqued my interest | | UK | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
John UK wrote:
Thanks Lurker. I think I'm grasping it slowly. 
Do you remember all those 'funny' people who used to post, whom I called hypermen? Do you reckon they might have been PP's? If so, it would explain the fierce verbal persecution I had to endure from them. For the record John, we know that the Presbys sorely persecuted the Anabaptists and had they won the day at the Westminster Assembly we can be sure that they would have mounted a similar campaign against the already persecuted Baptists. They would be hard pressed to find cases of Baptists persecuting them! Baptists believe in freedom of conscience, freedom of speech and toleration, all of which are hated by the Presbys.! |
|
|
| 1/7/12 2:04 PM |
| Piqued my interest | | UK | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
RP wrote:
Are 'these people' really Christian? Strong accusation Wow or whoever you are..... Firstly, you should read the post carefully. I was not the one making the accusation. I think there is sufficient information in the public domain for people to make their own minds up.Secondly, Matthew 18 concerns grievance procedures for a local congregation. [Incidentally, you should notice that there is no reference to Presbyteries, or Synods!]. Thirdly and finally, I cannot see what SWRB has to do with you, unless you are a representative of the organisation. Perhaps you should come clean, and then we will have no doubts from whence you derive such a blind prejudice against all Independents. I for one am very glad that they won the day in the Westminster Assembly. Who could stomach to live with some of the the narrow, mean spirited modern Presbys who have clearly been moulded by the writings of some of the Presbys in the Assembly?! |
|
|
| 1/7/12 10:10 AM |
| Piqued my interest | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
RP wrote:
Yes, that was what I was refering to. I stand corrected I confuse Indepedents with Anabaptists because of Reformed Baptists. Very confusing, I have had a very difficult day. I checked in on this whatever you call it, here and reacted to a day of false accusations, after reading he posts. Then made my own. I will replace Independent for Anabaptist in my reference.
The man was an Independent and Malignant to the Covenants? I still don't understand who you are referring to. Charles II was the monarch beloved of the Scots who turned against them and brought about the intense persecution of the Covenanters. He was an Episcopalian, not an Independent. Cromwell, who was an Independent had already died and took no part in these proceedings.What irked the Scots was that the handful of Independents in the Westminster Assembly frustrated their attempts to foist a Presbyterian polity on the English churches. Something that Prebys have never forgiven the Independents for. Sad that events hundreds of years ago are kept alive today by narrow minded bigots who wish to continue to live in the past, (days they see as the glory days). Scots were happy enough to ally with the Independent army so long as their hopes were kept alive! |
|
|
| 1/6/12 7:20 PM |
| Piqued my interest | | UK | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Re: SWRB1. 
2. They hate toleration, and this is writ large in their narrow spirit.
3. Does their stuff really sell? If so, who buys it?
4. I see from various sources that they are alleged to have downloaded pdf books from EEBO and sold them on for profit, despite knowing for many years of the copyright infringement!! Apparently they eventually did a deal with EEBO, which makes me think that the allegations had some substance. If what I surmise is correct, my question is "Are these people really Christian?!" According to them the Solemn League and Covenant is still binding on England and they want to effect a Third Reformation along the lines of the "Second Reformation" in Scotland! All I can say is Wow!! May God preserve us from their like. |
|
|
| 1/6/12 6:22 PM |
| Piqued my interest | | | |
|
• Thread closed
• Report abuse
|
Neil wrote:
Beats me.....I don't know of any prominent Baptists (let alone Anabaptists) who had a leading role in the English Civil War; ... Thank you Neil! Heartening to know that I am not the only one who is confounded by his statement. I shall wait with baited breath to see if RP can elaborate and supply credible sources to illuminate us all. John UK Thank you for your post. James I with the help of the Scottish parliament had reimposed episcopacy on Scotland. Charles I was even more strenous in this and his actions led to a Scottish rebellion. Charles had of course so marginalised Parliament that this led to the Civil war. The Scotch sided with Parliament against Charles. But when Charles was captured the Scotch who had done a deal with him invaded England in his name. Their forces were defeated by Cromwell. After Charles was executed the Scotch crowned Charles II. His was driven out and defeated by Cromwell, who nevertheless permitted religious freedom in Scotland. After Cromwell died Charles II was accepted as King BUT he reneged on his deal with the Scotch and forced Episcopacy again on the Scotch with vigour. This led to a period of intense persecution of the Covenanters and I suspect that RP is referring to this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
