The recent thread asking for Fundamentalists to explain/amplify what they believe was, in my opinion, a good start at civil dialog. Unfortunately it was hijacked by name callers and divisive foolishness. Let's keep this one civil or I will ask C4K to close this one too! I think I understand what your question is getting at but I think you worded it in a way that demands an answer that only agrees with your presupposition. Nevertheless I will try to answer it. I don't believe in an unbroken line of baptist churches. I do believe in an unbroken line of "the faith once delivered to the saints." That faith was often to be found in the dissenting churches that were anathamatized by Rome. Part of your problem may be your not being familiar with when the Roman Catholic Church as it now exists got its start. For the first 3 centuries the churches were fairly sound doctrinally. It was not so until Leo the Great (Leo I) was Pope from 440 to 461 AD. It was he who moved the church away from orthodox polity to the rule of one man who "stood in place of Christ." The error had its roots in Emperor Constantine's unholy marriage of church and state, but it did not progress to its present situation until the reign of Leo I. So, the councils to that time tended toward orthodoxy and most of the major doctrinal issues were settled prior to the reign of Leo I. No, we should not have another bible, another God, another Christ or another Holy Spirit. They did. Read Montanus, Novatian, Tertutillian, Donatus. And don't leave out "The Noble Lesson" which dates to 1100 AD. I think you might be laboring under a false impression. I have great respect for history. In fact I taught Ecclesiastical History at the Seminary level for over 25 years. Not only that but I have taught through the great Creeds and Confessions of Christendom and have written extensively on those Creeds/Confessions. I personally hold to many of those Creeds, and the First London Confession of Faith is what our church stands by as its indication of doctrine and practice. I suppose if I believed any such thing it would be, at least, ignorance. But, of course, I don't believe any such thing. What I believe is that the Family of God was not the exclusive purview of the Church of Rome. In fact, at many periods of church history, the Church of Rome represented a minority of the redeemed. You changed horses in mid stream. I don't hold to any of those things. They have nothing at all to do with the fundamentals of the faith. They are, at best, peripheral issues. What wickedness do you accuse me of excusing? Last time I checked I condemned wickedness in all its forms, including, my young friend, the wickedness of false accusations. No, we can find wickedness in all denominations, groups, fellowships, etc. And most fundamentalists I know and fellowship with condemn these things quite vehemently. It may be true that some who describe themselves as fundamentalists are guilty of these sins but the radical fringe does not represent the heart or the whole of those who believe the fundamentals of the faith.