Well, yes, of course he was. But how much stock should we put in the ravings of a man who makes no distinction between Munster Anabaptists and their like and the men (including Kiffin) who signed the First London Confession? A man who would accuse Kiffin, et al., of plural marriage, public nakedness, advocating the killing of government officials, etc.?
Someone on this board has repeatedly chided others for using paedobaptist sources to buttress an opinion. Of course, this is different because it ...
I may be missing it, but my impression from the reading is that Featley had been acquainted with Anabaptists for 20 years but being dipt "head over ears" was something new. I would be grateful if you would provide the reference, because I may be wrong.
And Featley, of course, probably ranks first in creating an "intentional smear job."
Were there PaedoBaptists then though? Just to clarify here, you are stating that the Baptists started in Acts, that there were no real NT churches under Reformation that held to infant baptism, and now only legit NT churches are certain Baptists, correct?
I should note that people are different. I am a ninth generation American (my family came from Ireland). My family is very much involved in knowing our family lineage. I do not share that interest as I can't seem to understand how (other than as trivia) that bears upon who I am.
So I believe that churches should look not to a heritage of churches throughout time, but instead to Christ. For me, that is where our true heritage rests. If a Muslim converts because he stumbled on the gospel in a tract, and others are converted, and they soon assemble as a church....I do not think that they have less a heritage than does anyone else. It is a spiritual kinship, not a physical line of "true churches".
Reminds me of read from Chuck Swindoll...
2 Christians met, on bridge,
and one said I am a Christian, other agreed with him
I am a Baptsit, again other agreed
I holdt KJV only, other agreed
Pre Mil pre trib, other agreed
I hold to limited, other said unlimited atonemet
'You are a heretic" and threw him off the bridge!
I know each of you guys are on to something....however we each need to quantify our assessments. Is it so important for us, who claim Christs Grace & forgiveness to review the past history & try to apply it to some degree to what each of us thinks is our own concept of the Baptist Church as it is today.
What is our end game gentlemen? Where are our minds when we discuss Baptist development in the 16 hundreds up until now? Ive stated this before & I will say it again, I cant make the events of the past, The Reformation etc disorientate me because if I do that, I cant focus on the goals God has put me to accomplish in this here and now. What I can do however is acknowledge God there with me as a part of my life....guiding me & challenging me to live a holy & joyful life. Look,I am slow, a most egregious sinner, but with His help I am learning. Thats good enough for me.
I have now been able to find these Broadmead church records.
You do realise that this church was in Bristol, not London, don't you?
There are some 640 pages to trawl through, so I am by no means finished, but may I draw your attention to pages 79-80 where it very clearly states that John Spilsbury departed from the Southwark Independent Church of Henry Jacob in 1633.
So Spilsbury was a former Independent paedobaptist, and he did live in London for an extended period.
That is no criticism whatsoever of Spilsbury.
He left when his understanding of what the Scriptures teach became clearer, just as Knollys and Kiffin would do after him.
Absolutely right!
The reason I have argued so strongly against Landmarkism is that it is exclusive to the point that it banishes anyone who cannot pronounce its shibboleths to the outer margins of heaven, whereas those initiated into the mysteries of LM have exclusive rights to the New Jerusalem.
It divides Christian against Christian.
I know what I believe to be true and am prepared to argue for it, but Dispensationalists, Arminians, Presbyterians, Episcopalians etc. are all my brothers in Christ so long as they hold to the Gospel and to the bodily return of Christ in glory.
When used to describe a theology, denotation is out the window. If I say I am Reformed, I'm not saying I was thinking one way, then changed. I'm saying I believe in things like Sola Scriptura.
The Reformation was a move of God. Baptists need to get over themselves.
Even the 1689 London Baptist Confession, which mostly apes the previous Presbyterian (Westminster) and Independent (Savoy) language, deletes the term Reformed:
Independent (Presbyterian same):
"such as profess the true Reformed religion, should not marry with Infidels, Papists, or other Idolaters"
Baptist:
"such as profess the true Religion, should not marry with Infidels, or Idolaters"
In the New Jerusalem, there will be ONLY saved persons, ALL got there in same fashion, there will be no Baptist section, Reformed, Lutheryn, AOG etc!
When will we take to heart that Jesus really meant that His body should be one, just as He and Father are? We are free to disagree, but not free to make us Lord over/superior to others saved by God?