Home » Posts tagged 'history' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: history
USS San Francisco and the Battle of Guadalcanal, Lands End, Golden Gate Recreation Area
San Francisco has some very interesting historical monuments. At Lands End in the Golden Gate Recreation Area, there is a monument commemorating the naval battle of Guadalcanal in World War II and the USS San Francisco, the lead ship that fought the Japanese army there. The next stop for Japan after Guadalcanal was Australia. U.S. Marines landed on Guadalcanal August 7, 1942, capturing and secured the airfield. The Marines fought for months against thousands of Japanese soldiers attempting to regain control of the airfield.
A short video about the USS San Francisco and the Battle of Guadalcanal is below:
You can also click here to view the video on YouTube.
Click here to view the video on Rumble.
Japan’s Vice Admiral Hiroaki Abe was dispatched to bombard and land troops on Guadalcanal. Rear Admiral Daniel J. Callaghan, on board his flagship the USS San Francisco (CA-38), a 10,000 ton treaty cruiser, was directed to intercept the Japanese naval strike force. On November 12, near Guadalcanal, a damaged enemy plane crashed into the USS San Francisco, destroying the aft control station, killing and wounding 51 men. With a crippled flagship, RADM Callaghan bravely prepared his task force for this imminent battle, which began at 1:48 a.m. Friday the 13 of November 1942. Never in the history of modern warfare had U.S. Naval Forces clashed with enemy ships at collision range in a pitch-black night. This battle is also the only U. S. Naval surface ship engagement in which two American admirals were killed in action: RADM Daniel J. Callaghan on the USS San Francisco (CA-38) and RADM Norman Scott on the USS Atlanta (CL-51). A total of more than 6,000 men on both sides were killed or wounded. The USS San Francisco, severely damaged, limped home to receive a new bridge and other major repairs at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard. She then returned to sea to give battle and bombardment support for landings and occupations in the Pacific. This battle of November 13, 1942, was a major turning point of World War II. It prevented the possible loss of Henderson Field, thus saving Australia from the planned invasion. It marked the beginning of victory in the Pacific.
–TDR
Answers to the Racist Race Question: White/Black or Human/American?
Scripture teaches that there is only one race–the human race. Furthermore, Biblical teaching condemns racism and, when consistently applied, results in the abolition of chattel slavery. Consequently, I do not appreciate the renewed push, especially on the left, for making everything about race. Critical race theory is both contrary to Scripture and (unsurprisingly) does not reflect reality, reflecting in many ways a worldview that is contrary to what God has revealed in His Word.
Furthermore, since when surveys ask me about my “race,” I am going to be judged by the color of my skin and not the content of my character, I know that if I answer the way the survey wants me to I will give the “wrong” answer. Since my skin is on the lighter side of the spectrum of human pigmentation, making less melanin than some others whose ancestors came from warmer regions, I am supposed to answer “white,” and then feel guilty for the oppressive role that my ancestors played in human slavery in the USA (even though they weren’t even here, but immigrated to the USA after slavery was already abolished, on one side of the family fleeing the slavery of communism). As someone who is “white,” I am oppressing Barak Obama, Kamala Harris, Michael Jordan, and other incredibly powerful, wealthy, and influential people who are “black.” If I answer “white,” I will be discriminated against in the name of “equity.” My area will get less federal and state funds. It will just be worse for my community and for me as a person, and I will be contributing to dividing my nation over race, when the amount of melanin made by one’s skin is one of the least important features of a person.
I have consequently decided to answer surveys on race in one of two ways. When a survey asks about “race,” I will use the “other” checkbox and say:
1.) “Human.” I am part of the human race.
or, alternatively,
2.) “American.” That would seem to be as legitimate a choice as Nigerian, Norwegian, Japanese, Cuban, etc.
The only exception for me would be on a medical form where it could actually make a real difference, as people who are descended from Japheth are more likely to get some diseases, and less likely to get others, than descendants of Ham (and the same goes for the descendants of Shem). If the question actually serves a legitimate purpose, I can answer it the way they want me to. But if the form is simply to promote “equity” by punishing some groups to favor others based on the color of their skin, I am going to answer “human” or “American.”
Furthermore, since a man can really be a woman now, men can get pregnant, many children in public “schools” are identifying not only as the other gender but even as “furries” or other animals, it should be no difficulty for me to identify as whatever I want for race. If men and women are not determined by biology, my race could be Mutant Ninja Turtle, or I could be a pigeon.
So there is certainly no reason I cannot truthfully answer “human” or “American” on the “race” question.
I would also encourage you to think about the divisive and racist race questions that come up in many settings. Think about whether we would be better off if a very high percentage of the population started answering “human” to these questions and started believing what the Bible says about race and racism.
–TDR
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by Richard Whately & Skepticism
Have you ever read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte by ? (view the book online for free here or here; a version you can cut and paste into a document so you can listen to it is here), or get a physical copy:
David Hume, the famous skeptic, employed a variety of skeptical arguments against the Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ, and against the possibility of miracles and the rationality of believing in them in Section 10, “Of Miracles,” of Hume’s Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Whately, an Anglican who believed in the Bible, in miracles, and in Christ and His resurrection, turned Hume’s skeptical arguments against themselves. Whately’s “satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), … show[ed] that the same methods used to cast doubt on [Biblical] miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.” Whately’s book is a short and humerous demonstration that Hume’s hyper-skepticism would not only “prove” that Christ did not do any miracles or rise from the dead, but that Napoleon, who was still alive at the time, did not exist or engage in the Napoleonic wars. Hume’s argument against miracles is still extremely influential–indeed, as the teaching sessions mentioned in my last Friday’s post indicated, the main argument today against the resurrection of Christ is not a specific alternative theory such as the stolen-body, hallucination, or swoon theory, but the argument that miracles are impossible, so, therefore, Christ did not rise–Hume’s argument lives on, although it does not deserve to do so, as the critiques of Hume’s argument on my website demonstrate. For these reasons, the quick and fun read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte is well worth a read. (As a side note, the spelling “Buonaparte” by the author, instead of Bonaparte, is deliberate–the British “used the foreign sounding ‘Buonaparte’ to undermine his legitimacy as a French ruler. … On St Helena, when the British refused to acknowledge the defeated Emperor’s imperial rights, they insisted everyone call him ‘General Buonaparte.'”
Contemporary Significance
Part of the contemporary significance of Richard Whately’s Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte relates to how we evaluate historical data. We should avoid both the undue skepticism of David Hume and also undue credulity. Whatever God revealed in His Word can, and must, be accepted without question. But outside of Scripture, when evaluating historical arguments, we should employ Biblical principles such as the following:
Have the best arguments both for and against the matter in question been carefully examined?
Is the argument logical?
Are there conflicts of interest in those promoting the argument?
Does the argument produce extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims?
Does the argument require me to think more highly of myself than I ought to think?
Is looking into the argument redeeming the time?
Are Biblical patterns of authority followed by those spreading the argument?
(principles are reproduced from my website here, and are also discussed here.)
A failure to properly employ consistent criteria to the evaluation of evidence undermines the case for Scripture. For example, Assyrian records provide as strong a confirmation as one could expect for Hezekiah’s miraculous deliverance from the hand of Assyria by Jehovah’s slaying 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2 Kings 19). However, Assyrian annals are extremely biased ancient propaganda. Those today who claim that any source showing bias (say, against former President Trump, or against conservative Republicans–of which there are many) should be automatically rejected out of hand would have to deny, if they were consistent, that Assyrian records provide a glorious confirmation of the Biblical miracle. Likewise, Matthew records that the guards at Christ’s tomb claimed that the Lord’s body was stolen as they slept (Matthew 28). Matthew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, intends the reader to be able to see through this biased and false argument to recognize the fact that non-Christians were making it actually provides confirmation for the resurrection of Christ. (If you do not see how it confirms the resurrection, think about it for a while.)
Many claims made today, whether that the population of the USA would catastrophically decline as tens of millions would die from the COVID vaccine, that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams had her election win in Georgia stolen by Republicans, that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump had his 2020 election win in Georgia stolen by Democrats, that 9/11 was perpetrated by US intelligence agencies, that Trump colluded with Russia to win the 2016 presidential election, that the miracle cure for cancer has been discovered but is being suppressed by Big Pharma, and many other such claims are rarely advanced by those who follow the Biblical principles listed above for evaluating information. Furthermore, the (dubious) method of argumentation for such claims, if applied to the very strong archaeological evidence for the Bible, would very frequently undermine it, or, indeed, frequently undermine the possibility of any historical investigation at all and destroy the field of historical research.
In conclusion, I would encourage you to read Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte, and, as you read it, think about what Scripture teaches about how one evaluates historical information.
–TDR
-The Amazon link above is an affiliate link. Please visit here to learn about how one can donate to charity at no additional cost when purchasing products at Amazon and here to learn how to save on Internet purchases in general.
Christ’s Human Nature From His Mother Mary: Menno Simons was wrong
Christ received His human nature from His human mother, Mary (contrary to the teaching of Menno Simons).
God did not create a new human nature in Mary’s womb that was unconnected with Mary’s humanity, so that she was simply a pipe or conduit through which an unrelated human nature came into existence. Luke 1:35 states:
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The Son was conceived through the working of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) in the womb of a virgin named Mary, who was engaged to a man named Joseph.
Similarly, Galatians 4:4 reads:
Gal. 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman [γενόμενον ἐκ γυναικός], made under the law,
Christ’s human nature became or came into existence, was made, from, of, or out of His human mother, Mary.
The Lord Jesus was the “fruit” of Mary’s “womb”:
Luke 1:42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And her actual Son:
Luke 2:7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
He was a literal descendent of David, both through His adopted human father Joseph and through His literal mother, Mary:
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
If you have taught (likely without thinking it through and with no bad intentions) that Christ’s human nature was not connected to Mary’s humanity through a miraculous work that resulted in Christ’s sinless humanity, despite Mary’s being a sinner, and instead taught that God just created a human nature in the womb of Mary, based on the verses above, you need to change. Stop teaching that. Such a teaching undermines Christ’s true human nature and thus attacks the salvation He wrought for us as the God-Man.
I am thankful for the history of Anabaptist martyrs in the book The Martyr’s Mirror, it is definitely worth reading, and as a history of martyrs in immersions assemblies, has a great deal to commend it above Foxe’s much more well known book of martyrs.
However, Menno Simons, the Reformation Anabaptist leader, denied the Scriptural and traditional Christian view that Christ took His human nature from Mary for the heretical position that His human nature was created in the womb of Mary. Unfortunately, some of the later individuals mentioned in The Martyr’s Mirror follow Menno’s false doctrine in this matter. Thankfully, Menno’s error did not make it into any Baptist confessions; it is more of an idiosyncratic view that he held personally. One may think of Jack Hyles’ similar idiosyncratic heresy that Jesus Christ was human even before His incarnation. Nor does Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s incarnation appear in J. Newton Brown’s edifying book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
The Divine Person of Christ was “sent forth” from the Father, but His human nature was “made of a woman” in the virgin conception and birth (Galatians 4:4). Mary was not a surrogate mother, which Christ’s humanity simply passing through her in a manner comparable to the position of the ancient Gnostic heretic Valentinus:
Menno’s own view of the incarnation, however, became a source of controversy among the Anabaptists. It was never accepted by the Swiss Brethren. His view was similar to that of Hofmann. The crux of the problem to him was the origin of Christ’s physical nature. He held that it was a new creation of the Holy Spirit within the body of Mary. Menno’s position differed from the historic view in denying that Christ received his human body from Mary. He replaced the orthodox view, “per Spiritum Sanctum ex Maria virginenatus,” with “per Spiritum Sanctum in Maria virgine conceptus, factus et natus.”[1]
There is some historical evidence that Anabaptists who practiced believer’s immersion rejected Menno’s heretical view on Christ’s humanity with greater consistency than did those who were open to believer’s pouring for “baptism.” This may account for why, as already indicated, no evidence for Menno’s view appears in Brown’s book Memorial of Baptist Martyrs.
I am thankful for Menno Simon’s many stands for truth in a very hostile environment, and look forward to meeting those who trusted in Christ alone and submitted to believer’s immersion in heaven, including those who did not think through the implications of Menno’s view on Christ’s incarnation but adopted Menno’s error from him. I am also thankful for The Martyr’s Mirror and the edifying narratives of Christian martyrs it contains. But on the subject of the incarnation Menno was wrong, and the Baptists and other Anabaptist churches that rejected his heresy were correct, following the teaching of Scripture.
–TDR
[1] William R. Estep, The Anabaptist Story: An Introduction to Sixteenth-Century Anabaptism, 3rd ed., rev. and enl. (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1996), 172.
Links to Amazon are affiliate links. Learn about how you can support righteous causes with Amazon purchases here.
Hebrews Made Mudbrick for Egyptian Storage Cities in the Time of the Exodus
I have posted another video relating to the evidence for the exodus from Egypt. In and before the time of the Exodus, archaeological evidence indicates that Habiru foreigners were making mudbrick for the store cities of Pharaoh. The evidence is discussed in situ at the Ramasseum near Luxor, Egypt by Egyptologist and evangelical scholar Dr. James Hoffmeier. I also have some discussion in my work on the archaeological evidence for the Old Testament here.
Watch on YouTube by clicking here. Watch on Rumble by clicking here.
–TDR
Methodist historian John Clark Ridpath: The Baptist Succession Quote
A number of weeks ago, I posted evidence that the quote by Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius on Baptist succession frequently referenced by Landmark Baptist writers was legitimate, and later I wrote about the Baptist succession quote by the Dutch Reformed writers Annaeus Ypeij and Isaak Johannes Dermout, which is also legitimate. Baptist successionists likewise reference the Methodist historian John Clark Ridpath on the ancient heritage of Baptists.
Methodist historian John Clark Ridpath
For example, William Dudley Nowlin, in his book Fundamentals of the Faith, wrote:
Church historians agree that Baptist principles and practices can be traced back to Christ and his apostles. Prof. John Clark Ridpath (Methodist) of De Pauw University says “I should not readily admit that there was a Baptist church as far back as A.D. 100 though without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists” (Baptist Church Perpetuity by Jarrell, page 59).
If, as this Methodist historian says, “all Christians in the year A.D. 100 were Baptists” and if they had any churches then they were Baptist churches, for a church composed of Baptists is a Baptist church. No logically minded man can escape this conclusion. (William Dudley Nowlin, Fundamentals of the Faith [Roger Williams Heritage Archives, 1922], 316)
Did this leading Methodist scholar admit that Baptists were around in A. D. 100? Yes, he did! As I note in my study on famous Baptist historical succession quotes in context:
The quotation comes from Willis Anselm Jarrel, Baptist Church Perpetuity (Dallas, TX: Jarrell, 1894), 58-59. The text records personal correspondence from Professor John Clarke Ridpath of Du Paw University in response to Dr. Jarrel’s written questions: “When, where and by whom was the first Baptist church originated?” … There is no objective reason to suspect the reality and accurate reproduction of the correspondence between Dr. Ridpath and Dr. Jarrel. This quotation on Baptist succession is also accurate.
(By the way, Jarrel’s Baptist Church Perpetuity is a good book which is well worth reading.)
Thus, this Methodist historian provided further evidence, as did the Roman Catholic and Dutch Reformed historians Hosius, Ypeij, and Dermout, that Baptists did not originate at the time or after the Protestant Reformation, but are the true churches with continuity from the first century until the present time, in accordance with Christ’s promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18). Both Scripture and history affirm Baptist succession.
–TDR
Dutch Reformed Historians Ypeij & Dermount on Baptist Succession
A number of weeks ago we examined the famous Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius quote on Baptist or Anabaptist succession, one often employed by Landmark Baptist writers and in the famous pamphlet The Trail of Blood. We saw that it was legitimate–this great Catholic scholar recognized the existence of Baptist succession. Landmark Baptists also often quote the Dutch Reformed historians Ypeij & Dermout on Baptist succession.
Reformed historian Annaeus Ypeij
For example, J. R. Graves, in his book The Trilemma; Or, Death By Three Horns (J. R. Graves and Son, 1890), 135–136, states the following as proof of Baptist succession:
In the year 1819, Dr. Ypeij, Professor of the University of Gunningen, and Dr. J. J. Dermout, chaplain to the King of Holland, distinguished Pedobaptist scholars, published a history, in four volumes, entitled, “History of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands” — of which Church they were members — in which work they devote a chapter to the history of the Dutch Baptists. I have space for only the frank statement of the conclusion to which their impartial investigation led them:
“We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who have long, in the history of the Church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrine of the Gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external economy of the Baptist denomination, tends to confirm the truth disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary; and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notions of the Catholics, that their communion is the most ancient.”
Is the quote by Annaeus Ypeij and Isaak Johannes Dermout accurate? Yes it is! The quote comes from Annaeus Ypeij & Izaak Johannes Dermout, Geschiedenis der Netherlandsche Hervomke Kerk (Breda: 1819-1827), 4 vol, I:148. An English translation appears in John Newton Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Boston: Shattuck & Co.,1835), 796, Article “Mennonites.” The encyclopedia continues:
“This testimony, from the highest official authority in the Dutch Reformed church, is certainly a rare instance of liberality towards another denomination. It is conceding all . . . the Baptists claim.”
Baptist successionists took care to check the Dutch and confirm the quote’s accuracy. For more on this quotation on Baptist history, please see my article “Famous Baptist Succession / History Quotes in Context.”
Thus, both Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants admit that Baptists are not Protestants, but have solid historical reasons to view themselves as the churches started by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, something that is proven by their Biblical doctrine and practice.
–TDR
Charles Darwin on Design in Creation
The Bible teaches that all men know God’s nature and power from creation, but they suppress that knowledge, leaving them without excuse. “All men” includes Charles Darwin, the incredibly influential promoter of the theory of evolution.
Scripture says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
Is there evidence in Darwin’s life that his study of the creation pointed the evolutionist to the Creator? In a conversation between the Duke of Argyll and Charles Darwin, in the last year of Darwin’s life, the Duke recounted:
In the course of [our] conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the “Fertilization of Orchids,” and upon “The Earthworms,” and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881 (London: John Murray, 1887), 316.
In public schools, when they teach Darwinian evolution, they should tell impressionable young people that in Charles Darwin’s studies “often,” “with overwhelming force,” the reality that the intricate design of creation is “impossible” to explain except as “the effect and the expression of Mind” struck the author of The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection and The Descent of Man. This statement from Darwin should be pounded into them the way they pound atheism and socialism into them.
I’m not holding my breath.
You can share his sentiments, however, with those who believe that Darwinian evolution explains away the need for the Almighty Creator. They ought to know.
Learn more about God, science, and the Bible by clicking here.
–TDR
The Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius Baptist Succession Quote: Is it Legitimate?
The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll, which we commended in a recent Friday’s post, contains the following quote by Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent, Stanislaus Hosius:
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers. (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112-113).
This Hosius quote is widely reproduced in other Baptist literature contemporary with Carroll. However, many non-Baptists have attacked it as illegitimate. For example, Catholics like to claim that Hosius never said anything like this. Other sources also claim Hosius never said it. Even some sincere Baptists–who, unfortunately, clearly did not know Latin–have said he never said it.
One of the problems with the quotation is that standards for citation in past centuries were not the same as they are now. “Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113” is very hard to trace. Furthermore, when Carroll wrote the Trail of Blood, citations did not necessarily have to include “…,” bracketed letters when capitalization was changed, and so on; it was acceptable and widely practiced to slightly paraphrase quotations. What Carroll and many Baptists in his day wrote was a proper citation back then, but it should be more properly cited now–that is, if it is legitimate. Is it?The answer is Yes! The Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent Stanislaus Hosius definitely did make a statement to this effect. Baptists should have no qualms whatever with citing this leading Roman Catholic as evidence of their ancient heritage, far, far before Protestantism. Those who deny that he ever said it do not seem to have taken the time to investigate the matter properly or were ignorant of Latin. (Perhaps a good reason to learn Latin, no?) What they should do, though, is cite the quote in a manner that suits the 21st century. Here is an accurate citation of Cardinal Hosius–this is the quote to use:
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous. . . . If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all other, if they were not grievously plagued, and cut off with the knife of persecution.
This translation comes from Richard Shacklock’s translation of Hosius’ Latin in a work entitled The Hatchet of Heresies: A Most Excellent Treaties of the begynnyng of heresyes in oure tyme, compiled by the Reuerend Father in God Stanislaus Hosius, etc. (Antwerp: Aeg. Diest, 1565; Ann Arbor: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 2011), 44-49.You can find the original Latin Shacklock is translating in Stanislai Hosii S. R. E. Cardinalis, Episcopi Varmiensis, In Concilio Tridentino Legati Opera Omnia Hactenus Edita, In Unum Corpus Collecta (Venice: Apud Franciscum Francisci, 1632), 203, sec. De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis. Here is a screenshot of the Latin text
If you know Latin, you can see the quotation near the top of the page.So the quotation about Baptist succession by Roman Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius is absolutely accurate, and he certainly did say it. Those who deny that he said it failed to research the matter properly.If you would like to read the quote in greater context, or see links to the places where you can get Shacklock’s translation of Hosius or Hosius’s original Latin, please read my article “Famous Baptist Succession / History Quotes in Context” by clicking here. I supply lots and lots of context. So you can use the Cardinal Hosius quote–shout it from the housetops. Just cite it correctly so people do not have a reason to doubt its accuracy.Scripture teaches Baptist church polity and Scripture teaches an actual succession of churches from the first Baptist church, organized by Christ from those baptized by the first Baptist–John the Baptist–the greatest man who had lived other than Christ up to that time (Matthew 11:11). External historical data, such as the testimony of Cardinal Hosius to Baptist succession, support the infallible truth of Scripture, which proves that Baptist churches are the churches of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior during His earthly ministry and preserved from that time until the present day. All other religious organizations that claim the name of Christian, unfortunately, are more akin in God’s eyes to the Roman Catholic whore of Babylon (Revelation 17) and her Protestant daughters (Revelation 17:5) than to the pure bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5). If you are reading this and have not been born again, you should immediately repent and believe the gospel, being justified by faith alone apart from works. Then immediately attend, be baptized into and serve the Triune God in a faithful independent, unaffiliated Baptist church–the kind Christ started in the first century, the kind for which He loved and died and His bride (Ephesians 5:25). If, by His grace, you love Christ, you must and will keep His commandments (John 14:15).
The Lie or Deceit of the Warfare or Conflict Model Between Science and Faith
True science proceeds from faith. The historical record shows that modern science arose from faith in God. Science and faith harmonize. They don’t conflict.
Like the tearing down of statues in the United States, the elimination of genders unto gender fluidity, and the revisionism of patriarchy as social construct, secular materialists banish faith from the public square by falsifying the true story of faith and science. The false narrative, useful for dethroning God in the hearts of men, says Newton’s science triumphed despite and hindered by his faith. His belief slowed his work. The actual narrative would read something like the following: man’s thinking, human reasoning, implausible speculation, superstition, darkness, little to no scientific progress, publication and propagation of scripture, motivation to know God through His creation, observation, scientific method, discovery and progress (subduing and having dominion).
Whatever scientific progress continues is built upon the foundation of biblical creationists of the past and borrowing from and imitating their work, even if it is separate from faith. The riddance of faith portends to future regression, even as we see this trend and trajectory already. For instance, without the faith in the invisible hand, the world economy is headed back to something more feudalistic.
Faux historians produced the science and faith warfare or conflict model in the late 19th century and this myth, legend, or figment of imagination burrowed itself deep into the psyche of Western civilization. It isn’t history. It is a philosophical presupposition of naturalism masquerading as science. Stephen Meyer writes about this in his most recent book, Return of the God Hypothesis.
Most science historians report the fideistic beginnings of modern science. The founders believed in God and their faith buttressed their work. A few men told a completely different story, John William Draper’s History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1880) and Andrew Dickson White’s History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). Commenting on this happening, historian Edward Larson writes in his Pulitzer Prize winning book that “they fostered the impression that religious critics of Darwinism threatened to rekindle the Inquisition. . . . Christianity and Science are recognized by their respective adherents as being absolutely incompatible; they cannot exist together; one must yield to the other; mankind must make its choice—it cannot have both” (Summer for the Gods: The Scope’s Trial and America’s Continuing Debate over Science and Religion, pp. 21-22). These above two books helped or aided to fix in the amassed minds that science and faith were at war with one another and always have been. Their lie displaced or deposed actual history. Now it is very, very difficult to dislodge.
The warfare or conflict model buttresses the uniformitarian template that man lives in a closed system without supernatural or divine intervention. It eliminates design with everything occurring according to chance. This view cancels God, His authority over and judgment of mankind. Man gets to live like he wants, because nobody’s going to do anything about it. Many if not a majority of professing Christians now at least surrender to this viewpoint, clashing with the Bible and a true, historical account.
Recent Comments