THE CONFESSING BAPTIST Reformed Resources from a 1689 Perspective

THE CONFESSING BAPTIST Reformed Resources from a 1689 Perspective About Contact Guidelines | T&C | FAQ Podcast Interview Headlines Book Review Categories News Theology Culture Audio Video Events Bapti-Bot Roundup POSTED ON DECEMBER 3, 2013 BY BAPTI-BOT Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 1 [Eric Ayala] The_Trail_of_Blood Chart prev Click picture to see full size “Trail of Blood” chart moppingEric Ayala @ Covenant Legacy takes up the mop against The Trail of Blood: For those who, like me, grew up in an independent, fundamental Baptist church you may be familiar with a little book by J.M. Carroll entitled, “The Trail of Blood: Following the Christians Down through the Centuries or, The History of Baptist Churches from the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day.” While that is quite a mouthful to say, this book published in 1931 is commonly referred to as simply, “The Trial of Blood.” The main thesis of this booklet is that Baptists are not protestants, were thus never part of the Roman Catholic Church and can trace their continued denominational line all the way back to John the Baptist (which Carroll on more than one occasion implies may be a proper denominational name to John by Christ himself). This post, and the next two that will follow, will examine the claims of the book and show them to be without any historical warrant. Read [7 min. readout] CATEGORIESTHEOLOGY TAGSBAPTIST SUCCESSIONISM, ERIC AYALA, HISTORIOGRAPHY, J.M. CARROLL, LANDMARKISM, TRAIL OF BLOOD 10 Replies to “Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 1 [Eric Ayala]” Pingback: Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 2 [Eric Ayala] | The Confessing Baptist Chad Bush DECEMBER 17, 2013 AT 2:03 AM I am sure you had a good reason to do as you did, but whether Carroll was right or wrong in some of his examples depends on one’s understanding of how the papacy lumped many of their enemies together into the same groups for classification as heretics. However, independent research apart from Carroll’s, including my own personal research, I being a former Pentecostal for most of my life (and a practicing witch for a small time as well), has led to the same truth Carroll found, Baptists are not Protestants. Sure, a flavor of Baptists may have arisen in the Protestant Reformation, but that does not mean they had their roots in the Reformation. I have to ask, if such is the case, when people such as myself and others, doing thorough and unbiased research, find contrary proofs to what you seem intent on disproving, where does that leave the facts? Shall we choose to follow the more modern line that Baptists are a modern creature, or the old belief and understanding that they were one in the same as the Christians at Antioch? I admit I have seen some good counterpoints, but none seems to hold any merit. If the Baptists are merely a Protestant creature, then I want nothing to do with them. I want to be a part of the church which the Lord built. It does not mean the members will be perfect. It does not mean there will not be persecutions that arise which could cause our local church to shut its doors. But, it means it was founded the way the Lord intended, and that is by the local churches sending out men to establish others in the faith, who might also be able to train others that they might be able to teach others, and so on, and so on, ad finitum, until the Lord returns. So, why is it I see Baptists constantly trying to tear apart our history when we have one reaching further back than the Reformation in England? It smacks of ignorance and Laodicean mentality. Ever Your Humble Servant in The Lord Jesus Christ, Chad Bush AKA Baptist Evangelist Reply Eric Ayala DECEMBER 17, 2013 AT 3:12 PM Chad, there are too many things to address here, so I will simply stick to my thesis as stated in my first post, “This post, and the next two that will follow, will examine the claims of the book and show them to be without any historical warrant.” When I say “without any historical warrant” I do not mean what you or I think about what happened in the past. I am speaking about the actual academic exercise of history, which requires documented sources and not mere assertions or speculations. I have listed various, primary and secondary sources for the factual claims in these posts, especially part 2, which includes ten footnoted references for a document that is only about 2 pages long. In my closing post I addressed the very claim that you are espousing, “I know that some who may be adherents of the book may claim that the heretical beliefs mentioned of these groups were mere slander against them from the Papists. The problem however, is that Carroll offers no defense of them or explanation; he never interacts with these groups or their beliefs.” It is not that Carroll made claims and then I made claims, it is that Carroll made undocumented claims that are not tenable historically, as I have shown from various works which can be verified and are referenced. Mere assertion is not history. I can assert anything I like but that does not make it history, the question is if it is documentable or not. There is no evidence that such groups were in fact modern day Baptists, one must simply assume it to be so. Carroll, for instance simply asserts that the Cathars were in the line of Baptists, if you have any documentable, verifiable evidence to the contrary, of primary or even secondary sources then please produce it. As to the nature of the Church and its members, please see the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 26 for the historic Baptist understanding, http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc26.html Reply Chad Bush DECEMBER 20, 2013 AT 3:21 AM I am sorry, I did not know you had a WHOLE ten footnotes. Sarcasm aside, Eric, there are men who have produced whole books of “warranted, historical proof” to the contrary of what you claim. Just because you make a baseless and shameless claim about historical accuracies does not mean your claim is with merit. Eric, let me say before I go any further, I do not mean to sound rude or arrogant. So, I beg you in all sincerity to please forgive me if it comes across as such. I live with severe chronic pain and take narcotic medications for it. Sometimes my “attitude” is perceived as less than charitable when, I assure you, my heart is pure in its intentions. Even if we disagree, dear brother, I still love you in the Lord and mean no ill will. I am not afraid to admit that though I have perused many books which have dealt with a historical look at these “heretical” groups, both from secular and religious historical points-of-view, I do not have them at my fingertips at present. I have a very limited library and add to it only those things I believe pertinent to my growth as a believer and teacher, and to contest for the faith. Whether or not someone believes the papacy and the early Protestant groups would not practice subterfuge and haphazardly label groups with a single name to lump all of the “heretics” together is not on my radar as being the most significant sourcebooks I desire or need. No, I much rather pack my shelves with the letters between Erasmus and Luther, studies in Baptist Covenantalism, Dispensationalism, Soteriology, creation and evolution, and so forth. I digress, I have not seen the need to buy books about the Cathars, the Waldensians, and so on. However, you seem to contest those who have written books claiming connections between the aforementioned and the Baptists were either lying, and/or they were not slandered by the papists who persecuted them? Why this defense for the whore of Babylon? She is not known for her honesty or purity in the faith. As for the so-called “historic Baptist understanding” you make claim of by referring me to the Second London Confession of Faith I would merely ask, what do I do with those Baptists who did not adhere to the confession? After all, the confessions were often drawn along the lines of the Particulars and the Generals, correct? Your pointing someone to the Second London Confession of Faith is like me telling someone to find the Baptist confession of faith today. It would be impossible as Baptists may hold to many doctrines the same, but in other areas we know there are differences. I assume the reason Carroll did not produce any explanation or defense for the groups he mentions was because many Baptists believed as he did, and had the same types of sources he had access to, by and large. However, in the light of what you have said, I will have to gain access to the books I once had my fingers on to produce these historical points you said are unwarranted. After all, I am not a man who longs to leave things in the air without some sort of proof wherever possible. Then again, as I close, I must ask, what do we do with the many works burned by the papacy? After all, they were often wont to do this to those they persecuted. As such, we are left with items as minimal as the Schleitheim Confession, which holds to many of the tenets Baptists would agree with. Is there any room for this theory in the “unwarranted” proof section of your argument, or is it an invalid counter-point? Reply Eric Ayala DECEMBER 20, 2013 AT 3:01 PM Chad, my mentioning of footnoting my reference material was not meant to impress you. It was to substantiate the fact that I have provided means to check my information and Carroll has not. J.M. Carroll made undocumented and unsubstantiated claims about history, and I have not. Further, you do not seem to understand that baseless means without basis, and even though you have accused me of baseless claims, I have clearly provided my basis for my claims. You have done what I feared you would do and have taken a side comment about a confessional understanding of the church and have chosen to beat that drum instead of the actual topic at hand. Once again, the nature and character of the Church is not the issue that is dealt with in these blog posts. And even though you gave various sources dealing with the necessity of credo-baptism for Baptist church membership that is also not the topic that these blog posts deal with. As to various Baptists of the past believing in a continued line of credo-baptist practice, I am well aware of that, as in the very first post of this series I stated, “Baptist seccessionism, or perpetuity, did not begin with James Milton Carroll, as many Baptist historians held a similar view before him; however he was one of the first to string together a strange hodgepodge of ancient and medieval sects in order to prove his point.” These blog posts were about J.M. Carroll’s book “The Trail of Blood” not the nature of the church, how I defend the “Whore of Babylon,” the necessity of baptism for Baptist church membership, the relationship of confessionalism to scriptural authority and soul liberty, or how I am a mindless robot. I am not going to participate in every rabbit trail. Once again, we are dealing with history, not could-have-beens, maybes and what-if’s. Did the Papacy burn books? Sure, and do you know what that tells us? That they burned books, nothing more. We cannot build a case around information that we don’t have, based on books which we have no idea what they said. So to answer, yes, it is an invalid counter-point. I will not continue to reply for much longer, as it is seems to be unfruitful. I would simply suggest that you listen to and read the resources on this very site about Baptist History, and the resources they link to, for I am not alone in this understanding of history. Here is a good Start: http://confessingbaptist.com/podcast007/ Reply Chad Bush DECEMBER 21, 2013 AT 8:03 PM Eric, I know that your reference to the footnoting was not meant to impress. My implication was that a simple mentioning of ten references in the light of the manifold more one could gain access to is a very short list of references to try and build up a theory. Also, as an English major, I am quite certain of the definition of baseless, and indeed stand by the original use in the point I made. Something can be baseless if it is also based upon false presumptions in the light of a larger quantity and quality of truth available. I am sorry if you misunderstood my posting of the credo-baptist practices as my latching onto a side comment. I did not do so. My whole issue in positing those points was that your referencing me to one creed is impossible to set up as authoritative seeing as our brethren have held differences in various doctrinal themes. I do not believe you are an automaton, dear brother. As a matter of fact, I deeply respect you as a man who has been called to the pastorate. I would never demean your intellect or your intelligence. I would call a spade a spade, and thus seek to correct misinformation where possible. However, I am on a serious time constraint as I have a major paper due on the godless atheist Jean Paul Sartre and how the self-taught man would function in light of the digital society. This paper is due for the major authors seminar in my M.A. in english track. I am not seeking to brag of my studies, merely to state that at present I do not have the sufficient time to go and gather the resources I know of to show where I believe you err. So, please forgive me my error if I have wronged you or hurt your feelings. It is never my intentions to do so in anything unto any man. And while you are not alone in your understanding of Baptist history from your position, I would equally point that much more studied and learned men than I also adhere to the same persuasion unto which I hold dear as truth. A decent place to find some references is here: http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/ . Spurgeon was no unlearned man, and he believed as I do. I can supply many others, just as you surely could. This is not an issue of who agrees with you or me. It is an issue of historical accuracies. As such, I will surely peruse the article you reference as I have the time, but I would also say the opposition has just as much relevance in the points they make. So, in this instance I would close that I do agree with you that all claims should be backed up with facts. I have done my fair share of reporting, writing historical studies and fact checking. I am not opposed to it. I would say Carroll’s booklet is deficient in this for not using proper annotations and footnotes for references. However, I will not fault the man just because he might have tried his best without knowing how to do these things. Not all men do. I have had others in the faith ask me help to format their works, check references and to make sure their annotations and footnotes are properly displayed throughout. I wish Carroll would have followed this practice. But, as I stated, much of what he posited had been backed up with the similar references you seek in his work in works of other men. After all, we do not have to give references for what is considered common knowledge. He was writing a booklet on Baptist history to Baptist people. As such, he could have considered all he provided common knowledge and saw no need for annotations or footnotes. We will never know his reasons. I am sorry you find this unfruitful. I find it very fruitful because the Lord says iron sharpens iron. Your challenges will cause me to search out references where I can to answer you in the points I have given, or to direct counterpoints to your own. I pray we can continue the discussion in brotherly love, calm demeanors and the desire that the truth be revealed for all, to the glory of Christ Jesus. Chad Bush DECEMBER 20, 2013 AT 3:51 AM As a response of your reference to the 1689 confession for the issue regarding the church and its members I would again make an appeal to other confessions. Helwys’ declaration, often considered the first Baptist confession, does not make the same confession the Second London does in regards to the church. The 1644 First London Confession, and 1646 revision, disagree on some points about the idea of what constitutes the church. The 1651 Faith and Practice of Thirty Congregations varies slightly. The 1656 Somerset Confession also varies in the same manner. The 1660 Standard Confession, in protest to being labeled anabaptists, also ventures some little bit from the Second London Confession. I can pull out all of the many so-called confessions, and we will find there are two positions our forebears have held to, but that the one over the other was newer introduced, and that through Protestant influences, is undeniable. Seeing as we hold to individual soul liberty, why should I then submit to the 1689 Confession of Faith if I deem it is not right in some manner according to the scriptures? They saw fit to amend the first, and then to again revise it. Yet, we find that the subject of the church and its members has always hinged upon salvation and baptism. So, unless I am missing something in this reference I would agree with the confessions only when they agree with the scriptures. The scriptures affirm one kind of true New Testament church–local and visible only. This is the faith the brethren once adhered to. I actually recently supported this through a post on Facebook on December 2nd with firsthand or secondhand sources. Let me see if I can find them real quick. [[[I find it funny that this accusation of briderism is thrown around. A quick study of the historical beliefs of the many baptists will show they held to what is now commonly called brider doctrine. As our world has liberalized the term “church” the Baptists have taken up the Laodicean language of the last days and have fallen in lock step with the world in their false understanding and false accusations. At the same time, I must also state that this doctrine being called brider doctrine, and falsely so due to misunderstanding what the landmark bride position teaches, sets up no authoritarian headship as the papal whore. Instead, it observed the right and sacredness of autonomy on a level we often do not see in our days. Then again, most Baptist will not study these facts as they have been mind programmed like robots to think everyone is a brider when they see this issue without realizing they have a very shallow understanding of what makes that doctrine different. I will supply some proofs below which lay out the fact that our forebears held that baptism by immersion was required for admission into a local assembly; and, in some instances, the quotes below also prove our forebears held to closed communion. So, why is it our brethren wish to hold to the name of Baptist while demeaning the faith held through the centuries? Almost all of our forebears would be labeled landmark Baptists or Baptist briders were they still around today. – 1. From John Gill’s Confession of Faith (1757) XI. We believe, That Baptism (Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Cor. 11:23-26) and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of Christ, to be continued until his second coming; and that the former is absolutely requisite to the latter; THAT IS TO SAY, THAT THOSE (Acts 2:41 and 9:18, 26) ONLY ARE TO BE ADMITTED INTO THE COMMUNION OF THE CHURCH, and to participate of all ordinances in it, (Mark 16:16; Acts 8:12, 36, 37 and 16:31-34 and 8:8) WHO UPON PROFESSION OF THEIR FAITH, HAVE BEEN BAPTIZED, (Matthew 3:6, 16; John 3:23; Acts 8:38, 39; Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12) by immersion, in the name of the Father, (Matthew 28:19) and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 2. From The Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association (1758) (While not stating baptism as a door to the church outright, the inference is contained in the following.) VI. The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful persons, who have obtained fellowship with each other, and have given themselves up to the Lord and one another; having agreed to keep up a godly discipline, according to the rules of the Gospel. VII. That Jesus Christ is the great head of the church, and that the government thereof is with the body. VIII. That baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of the Lord, and to be continued by his church until his second coming. IX. That true believers are the only fit subjects of baptism;, and that immersion is the only mode. X. That the church has no right to admit any but regular baptized church members to communion at the Lord’s table. 3. The Baptist Catechism by the Charleston Association (1813) Q. What is the duty of such who are rightly baptized? A. It is the duty of such who are rightly baptized to give up themselves to some particular and orderly church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Acts 2:41, 42; 5:13, 14; 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5; Lk. 1:6). 4. New Hampshire Confession (1833) -Of a Gospel Church We believe that a visible Church of Christ is A CONGREGATION OF BAPTIZED BELIEVERS (66), associated by covenant in the faith and fellowship of the gospel (67); observing the ordinances of Christ (68); governed by his laws (69), and exercising the gifts, rights, and privileges invested in them by his Word (70); that its only scriptural officers are Bishops, or Pastors, and Deacons (71), whose qualifications, claims, and duties are defined in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. -Of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper We believe that Christian Baptism is the immersion in water of a believer (72), into the name of the Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost (73); to show forth, in a solemn and beautiful emblem, our faith in the crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, with its effect in our death to sin and resurrection to a new life (74);THAT IT IS PREREQUISITE TO THE PRIVILEGE OF A CHURCH RELATION; and to the Lord’s Supper (75), in which the members of the Church, by the sacred use of bread and wine, are to commemorate together the dying love of Christ (76); preceded always by solemn self- examination (77). 5. Abstract of Principles – Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (1858) XV. Baptism. Baptism is an ordinance of the Lord Jesus, obligatory upon every believer, wherein he is immersed in water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, as a sign of his fellowship with the death and resurrection of Christ, of remission of sins, and of his giving himself up to God, to live and walk in newness of life. IT IS PREREQUISITE TO CHURCH FELLOWSHIP, AND TO PARTICIPATION IN THE LORD’S SUPPER. 6. The Baptist Faith and Message of the Southern Baptist Convention (2000) Being a church ordinance, it [baptism] is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper. 7. A Short Catechism About Baptism by John Tombes (1659) (37.) What are Christians to do when they are Baptized? To associate together in Church-Communion, and to walk according to their engagement, in obedience to them, who are over them in the Lord. 8. Philadelphia Confession of Faith (1742): Chapter 27 – Of the Church (6.) The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly manifesting and evidencing in and by their profession and walking, their obedience unto that call of Christ; and do willingly consent to walk together, according to the appointment of Christ, giving up themselves to the Lord, and one to another, by the will of God, IN PROFESSED SUBJECTION TO THE ORDINANCES OF THE GOSPEL. (12.) As all believers are bound to join themselves to particular churches, when and where they have opportunity so to do; so all that are admitted unto the privileges of a church, are also under the censures and government thereof, according to the rule of Christ. 9. A Catechism for Girls and Boys (1798) (126.)Q. What is a church? A. A church is an assembly of baptized believers joined by a covenant of discipline and witness who meet together regularly under the preaching of the Word of God (Mt 18:20; Acts 2:42). 10. Gadsby’s Catechism (ca. 1800) Question LXXXVIII. What is the duty and privilege of those who are rightly baptized? Answer. It is the duty and privilege of those who are rightly baptized to give up themselves to some orderly church of Jesus Christ, that they may walk, in all the commandments of Christ their Head. Psa. 66.16; Mal. 3.16; Jn. 14.15; Acts 2.38-47; 1 Cor. 12.12-31; Eph. 1.23 & 4.1-7,30-32. 11. A Puritan Catechism by Charles Spurgeon (1855) (80) Q. What is the duty of such as are rightly baptized? A. It is the duty of such as are rightly baptized, to give up themselves to some particular and orderly Church of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:47; 9:26; 1 Pet. 2:5), that they may walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless (Lk. 1:6). 12. Compend of Christian Doctrines Held by Baptists: In Catechisms by W.W Everts (1866) Q. (10) Why may not all claiming discipleship be invited to the communion? A. Because a ceremonial fellowship should be limited to ceremonial order; the Lord’s Supper should be approached only in the Lord’s way; and in the primitive church none but baptized believers partook of the supper. I Cor. xii: 13; Eph. iv: 4, 5. Q. (11) What analogies support the limitation of church fellowship? A. As immunities of citizens are awarded to attested citizenship, and connubial fellowship only to authenticated marriage, so church communion should be awarded only to church institution – ceremonial fellowship to ceremonial order. 13. Bullinger – a Presbyterian (1540) “The Anabaptists think themselves to be THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST, and acceptable to God; and teach that they who by baptism are received into their churches OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ANY COMMUNION (Fellowship) with (those called) evangelical or any other whatsoever for that OUR ( i.e. evangelical Protestant or reformed ) churches ARE NOT TRUE CHURCHES ANY MORE THAN THE CHURCHES OF THE PAPISTS.”]]] Did I somehow miss the “historic Baptist” understanding? Reply Ken Barber SEPTEMBER 23, 2015 AT 6:03 PM Good reply Chad. Ditto! Reply Chad Bush DECEMBER 17, 2013 AT 2:27 AM I am sure you had a good reason to do as you did, but whether Carroll was right or wrong in some of his examples depends on one’s understanding of how the papacy lumped many of their enemies together into the same groups for classification as heretics. However, independent research apart from Carroll’s, including my own personal research, I being a former Pentecostal for most of my life (and a practicing witch for a small time as well), has led to the same truth Carroll found, Baptists are not Protestants. Sure, a flavor of Baptists may have arisen in the Protestant Reformation, but that does not mean they had their roots in the Reformation. I have to ask, if such is the case, when people such as myself and others, doing thorough and unbiased research, find contrary proofs to what you seem intent on disproving, where does that leave the facts? Shall we choose to follow the more modern line that Baptists are a modern creature, or the old belief and understanding that they were one in the same as the Christians at Antioch? I admit I have seen some good counterpoints, but none seems to hold any merit. If the Baptists are merely a Protestant creature, then I want nothing to do with them. I want to be a part of the church which the Lord built. It does not mean the members will be perfect. It does not mean there will not be persecutions that arise which could cause our local church to shut its doors. But, it means it was founded the way the Lord intended, and that is by the local churches sending out men to establish others in the faith, who might also be able to train others that they might be able to teach others, and so on, and so on, ad finitum, until the Lord returns. So, why is it I see Baptists constantly trying to tear apart our history when we have one reaching further back than the Reformation in England? It smacks of ignorance and Laodicean mentality. Ever Your Humble Servant in The Lord Jesus Christ Chad Bush AKA Baptist Evangelist Reply Pingback: Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 3 [Eric Ayala] | The Confessing Baptist Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment Name * Email * Website Post Comment Post navigation Previous Post PREVIOUS Tom Ascol on Piper’s new poem “The Calvinist” Read by Anyabwile + moreNext Post NEXT How to Preach Christ from Old Testament Prophecy [Fred Malone] Search for: Search … Search FOLLOW: *: Enter your email address: Subscribe - Subscribe to just the podcast via RSS reader, iTunes, Stitcher, TuneIn or by Email* (*email is only sent out once per day) BAPTI-BOT BLOG ROUNDUP Iron Sharpens Iron Podcast Logo September 21, 2017 Show with Jeremy Walker on “What is Repentance?” Theme: September 21, 2017: Jeremy Walker, Pastor of Maidenbower Baptist Church of Crawley in West Sussex, England, author & blogger @ Reformation 21 & The Wanderer, will address: “What […] Fri, Oct 06, 2017 Iron Sharpens Iron Podcast Logo September 6, 2017 Show with Marc Grimaldi on “The Importance of Calvinism for Biblically Faithful Evangelism: What it Prevents & What it Preserves” Theme: September 6, 2017: Marc Grimaldi, a pastor @ Grace Reformed Baptist Church of Long Island in Merrick, NY, will address the theme: “The IMPORTANCE of CALVINISM For BIBLICALLY […] Fri, Oct 06, 2017 Archbishop of Canterbury Can’t Answer Direct Questions, More on the I Am Sayings of Jesus Snuck a quick DL in today, covering Justin Welby’s inability to answer a direct question on the nature of sin, and then spending most of our time continuing the discussion […] Fri, Oct 06, 2017 Introduction to “Getting the Garden Right: Adam’s Work and God’s Rest in Light of Christ,” coming soon from Founders Press Introduction This book, in one sense, concentrates on hermeneutics and theological method. I contend that New Covenant Theology (NCT) gets the covenant of works and the […] Fri, Oct 06, 2017 Final page of last lecture for Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors’ Conference ‘17 You can register for the conference here. Psalm 104:30 says, “You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the earth.” Here both […] Fri, Oct 06, 2017 Endorsements for “Getting the Garden Right,” coming soon from Founders Press Nothing shapes how we interpret and apply the Bible as much as our understanding of covenant. Richard Barcellos offers us a helpful blend of biblical exegesis and theological reflection […] Fri, Oct 06, 2017 RECENT COMMENTS Rich Barcellos on One Thing I Did Right in Ministry… [Blog Series | Founders] Jason on ‘Honey Out of the Rock’ by Thomas Wilcox [Free E-book] Jason on What is the Importance of Believer’s Baptism? Fred Malone Answers [5 min. VIDEO] Hesbon on July 7-9, 2015 “Pathway to Power” Metropolitan Tabernacle School of Theology feat. Peter Masters + more in London, UK Kevin Schwamb on Upcoming 7 Volume Series: “Lectures in Systematic Theology” by Greg Nichols. Book one months away… Sharon thombre on “The Seven Sayings of the Savior on the Cross” by A. W. Pink [Free eBook Friday] DANA CASTALDO on What is the Importance of Believer’s Baptism? Fred Malone Answers [5 min. VIDEO] TOP TAGS 17th Century Baptist History1689 Federalism1689 Second London Baptist Confession of FaithAndrew FullerApologeticsAsk a Reformed BaptistBaptismBaptist HistoryBooksCalvinismCharles SpurgeonChurchChurch HistoryConfessionalismCovenant TheologyEcclesiologyEvangelismFounders MinistriesFree e-book FridayGospelJames RenihanJames WhiteJeffrey T. RiddleJeremy WalkerMichael HaykinMissionsParticular Baptist HistoryParticular BaptistsParticular VoicesPastoral MinistryPastoral TheologyPreachingReformed Baptist 101Reformed Baptist SeminaryReformed Theology 101Regulative Principle of WorshipRichard BarcellosRoundupSacramentsSamuel RenihanSam WaldronThabiti AnyabwileTom AscolTom NettlesVoddie Baucham Proudly powered by WordPress