Pilgrims & Baptists: The Little Known Connection

[ThePilgrim]

I've nearly forgotten all I've ever read about the reformation era except the names of the leaders and how they made some very big (very big) mistakes.  Also for the most part they (just like most people) had a hard time getting very far from their roots, which was a state church.  But anyway, I find the writings of the puritans to be quite enjoyable and for the most part in spite of their shortcomings, I believe they loved the Lord and sought to keep themselves seperate from the world.  That is something I have a hard time finding in the church (and in the writings of authors) today.

[HappyChristian]

We do have to keep in mind, even though some may think all Puritans were the same, they weren't.
Just like Baptists, they had 'sects' that were biblical, and some led by men's 'doctrine', of which the earlier Puritans
of the 'Mayflower' beginnings, were of the 'freedom' mindset. It all depends on the particular 'author'
that you have read, and whether they agree with certain teachings in the Bible. They slanted 'christian' history back then, also.

The Puritans didn't come over on the Mayflower...that was the ship that carried the Pilgrims. Puritans weren't interested in liberty. They wanted to found a new Israel, based on the law of the OT.

Rather than reading 'authors' I suggest reading their own works. The Mathers were prodigious writers. They wanted a church run state and a state run church just like in England, only "purified."

Sadly, way too many text books have presented them as liberty lovers and the reason for the freedoms here in America when that simply is not the case. The big prOBlem with that actually began when the Christian school movement began. It was driven by Reformed folk who wanted to create a theocracy on the pattern of what the Puritans wanted. What better way than to rewrite a bit of history and give credit to Puritans rather than Baptists. Regardless of sect...

[Dr. Roberson]

A very fascinating topic, but I've not the time to give a proper post to the topic.

 

When time permits, I'll list a few of the books I've read that give some great insight to our Baptist History.

 

 

Dr. ROBerson

[Genevanpreacher]

The Puritans didn't come over on the Mayflower...that was the ship that carried the Pilgrims. Puritans weren't interested in liberty. They wanted to found a new Israel, based on the law of the OT.

Rather than reading 'authors' I suggest reading their own works. The Mathers were prodigious writers. They wanted a church run state and a state run church just like in England, only "purified."

Sadly, way too many text books have presented them as liberty lovers and the reason for the freedoms here in America when that simply is not the case. The big prOBlem with that actually began when the Christian school movement began. It was driven by Reformed folk who wanted to create a theocracy on the pattern of what the Puritans wanted. What better way than to rewrite a bit of history and give credit to Puritans rather than Baptists. Regardless of sect...

 

Right. Sorry. Mind a bit busy this a.m. Shouldn't have even commented when I did.

 

But the Pilgrims were freedom seekers and did start a somewhat Godly community, which did 'rot' later on by wrong leadership.

Not an argumental point, just what I have read, you maybe right, I am getting a bit ancient.

 

Am curious about the red statement though...

[Genevanpreacher]

Interestingly, and to head another direction in the relationship between Pilgrims and Baptists...

 

Pilgrims did not have the same mind set that Puritans did, as far as remaining part of the Anglican church. And Puritans were not at all in favor of any "free-thinker" (like Baptists) and would jail them or worse (OBadiah Holmes was beaten for daring to preach the gospel in Puritan territory).  Pilgrims here in America were not too friendly to Baptists, either.  They did not jail them, but they did not want them in their group.  Neither did either group like the Quakers.  Of course, Quakers were not biblical, but Puritans and Pilgrims were not really in favor of religious freedom. We can thank the hated Baptists for our freedoms - both politically and religiously (personal and political liberties are all rooted in true religious liberty).

 

Not according to their own testimony of leaving England's oppression. They left to find freedom of worship did they not?

[John81]

Not according to their own testimony of leaving England's oppression. They left to find freedom of worship did they not?

Many groups came here for freedom of worship, for themselves, not for others. There was a great deal of division in the colonies based upon the different church groups. Each wanted their own area and most didn't want others operating in their area.

[Miss Daisy]

I highly recommend anyone with curiosity of Baptist history to read In Crimson Red by James Beller. Great book, highly researched and everything is referenced with explanations. 

[HappyChristian]

GP -  I would never say that the Pilgrims were not admirable. Even the Puritans were (to certain points).  Both groups came to the New World for freedom of religion. The Puritans wanted a theocracy based upon Israel, while the Pilgrims wanted a bit more freedom (no king telling them how to worship, in other words).  These two groups opened the way for others to come seeking freedom, that's for sure.  However, as John said, too many of the groups seeking freedom wanted freedom the way they wanted it run.  

 

A great, very quick, read about the indoctrination of Puritans being proponents of liberty is The  Coming Destruction of the Baptist People by James Bellar. He was most definitely one of the top scholars of American Baptist history.  The book Miss Daisy mentioned, America in Crimson Red, is bigger but gives a great look at the history of Baptists in America. 

 

I would venture to say that nOBody here was taught in school anything but that the Puritans and the Pilgrims were those behind our freedoms and liberties...(please correct me if I'm wrong and let me know what you were taught)

[ThePilgrim]

Well as for me I don't remember being taught much at all in grade school (in the 40s and 50s) about the pilgrims except that they enjoyed a great meal with the indians.  I never attended highschool so I didn't learn anything there of course.  But in college (in the early 90s) I was told that the puritans and pilgrims were a bunch of bigoted religious fanatics who loved to burn witches and commited other heinous deeds.  Fortunately I am pretty much educated by my own reading and the school of hard knocks.  So I know that the puritans were not angels nor were they the devils spawn but they were good and they were bad . . . . they were human and people of their time.  Too many people tend to look at people of the past as if those people should be of the same mindset as people in our time, but time and circumstances make different people.  Flaws many and virtues many . . . . in the end . . . . only human.  I am certain that the Baptist sitting in your living room or study is not the same Baptist (by whatever name he was called) that was around in earlier times.

[Genevanpreacher]

Many groups came here for freedom of worship, for themselves, not for others. There was a great deal of division in the colonies based upon the different church groups. Each wanted their own area and most didn't want others operating in their area.

 

And are we not the same? We should be a little more protective of our areas, if we aren't.

I don't want JW's or Mormons or even Catholics in my region.

If Baptists are the originators of 'freedom of conscience' toward 'religion', maybe we should repent.

It sure has brought a bunch of 'hooplah' to what the scriptures really teach, and has opened our country

to all kinds of trashy religions such as islam, and budhism, and even the 'satanic churches of america'

(not capitalized for disrespect), as well as a host of others.

[Just a thinkin' out loud]

[HappyChristian]

And are we not the same? We should be a little more protective of our areas, if we aren't.

I don't want JW's or Mormons or even Catholics in my region.

If Baptists are the originators of 'freedom of conscience' toward 'religion', maybe we should repent.

It sure has brought a bunch of 'hooplah' to what the scriptures really teach, and has opened our country

to all kinds of trashy religions such as islam, and budhism, and even the 'satanic churches of america'

(not capitalized for disrespect), as well as a host of others.

[Just a thinkin' out loud]

Well, there is a serious misunderstanding of religious liberty here...

 

We cannot disallow JWs or Mormons or Catholics in our region.  We CAN be a witness and try to see them saved. But if we outlaw them, then we will be outlawed. Something early Baptists knew all about from their interactions (here in America...across the pond they knew it, too) with Puritans and Pilgrims.  Religious liberty did not open the doors of our country to the "hooplah" of Islam, Buddhism, etc.  Lack of seriousness on the part of actual Christians did that.  Our country (whether folks want to admit it or not) was founded on the principles of Christianity.  And in the early days, when folk feared God (even the lost did to certain extent) much more then they do now (yep, there was sin...because, after all, there were sinners...), most false religions stayed away.  

 

And that very same lack of seriousness on the part of Christians today is the reason we are in a bigger mess than ever.  It isn't the fault of liberty.  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Liberty. To blame religious liberty is to blame the God who gave it to us. No, no.  As always, the blame must lie on sinful man.

[John81]

And are we not the same? We should be a little more protective of our areas, if we aren't.

I don't want JW's or Mormons or even Catholics in my region.

If Baptists are the originators of 'freedom of conscience' toward 'religion', maybe we should repent.

It sure has brought a bunch of 'hooplah' to what the scriptures really teach, and has opened our country

to all kinds of trashy religions such as islam, and budhism, and even the 'satanic churches of america'

(not capitalized for disrespect), as well as a host of others.

[Just a thinkin' out loud]

It should have been OBvious that eventually the "freedom of religion" amendment would become a prOBlem, but at the time it would have very difficult for the Founder's to not have something like this. It might have been good if they had tried to confine the freedom of religion for Christians but that too would have opened up a whole can of worms the Founder's didn't want to, and rightly couldn't deal with.

 

In our fallen world there is no way to come up with a perfect government. Some Christians act as if democracy is God's divine government but that's far from the truth.

 

What's not often discussed, and is moot now that the central government has usurped and changed the meaning and application of the Bill of Rights, is that the First Amendment only applied to the central government. Each State was free to establish or regulate religion within their own borders as they saw fit. Some States were already doing this and continued for some time afterward.

 

Had the Founder's said the nation was to be Christian only, that would have left the door open for debates and eventual hostilities to determine which Christians were true Christians and which were not. The same would have occurred had the Founder's said America was going to be a Baptist country. Naturally non-Baptists would have revolted and there would have been disputes between various Baptists over which Baptists were "true Baptists".

 

Considering 90+% of the people considered themselves to be Christian, and those of a wide variety of types and stripes, there had to be a measure of freedom guaranteed at the national level. Since the vast majority of those "Christians" were secular Christians, not born again Christians, there was no way a truly Christian nation could be established.

 

While I would have called for at least a bit of restrictive language to the freedom of religion amendment even if it were there it wouldn't have cured everything. The Founder's did what they had to do in order to gain a nation through compromise.

[Genevanpreacher]

Well, there is a serious misunderstanding of religious liberty here...

 

We cannot disallow JWs or Mormons or Catholics in our region.  We CAN be a witness and try to see them saved. But if we outlaw them, then we will be outlawed. Something early Baptists knew all about from their interactions (here in America...across the pond they knew it, too) with Puritans and Pilgrims.  Religious liberty did not open the doors of our country to the "hooplah" of Islam, Buddhism, etc.  Lack of seriousness on the part of actual Christians did that.  Our country (whether folks want to admit it or not) was founded on the principles of Christianity.  And in the early days, when folk feared God (even the lost did to certain extent) much more then they do now (yep, there was sin...because, after all, there were sinners...), most false religions stayed away.  

 

And that very same lack of seriousness on the part of Christians today is the reason we are in a bigger mess than ever.  It isn't the fault of liberty.  The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Liberty. To blame religious liberty is to blame the God who gave it to us. No, no.  As always, the blame must lie on sinful man.

 

No not really, just looking at it from a 'not discussed' viewpoint.

I really agree with you, I am just thinking, could it have been done 'better', in some way, without 'allowing' false religion?

I don't think it could have, myself.

[Genevanpreacher]

It should have been OBvious that eventually the "freedom of religion" amendment would become a prOBlem, but at the time it would have very difficult for the Founder's to not have something like this. It might have been good if they had tried to confine the freedom of religion for Christians but that too would have opened up a whole can of worms the Founder's didn't want to, and rightly couldn't deal with.

 

In our fallen world there is no way to come up with a perfect government. Some Christians act as if democracy is God's divine government but that's far from the truth.

 

What's not often discussed, and is moot now that the central government has usurped and changed the meaning and application of the Bill of Rights, is that the First Amendment only applied to the central government. Each State was free to establish or regulate religion within their own borders as they saw fit. Some States were already doing this and continued for some time afterward.

 

Had the Founder's said the nation was to be Christian only, that would have left the door open for debates and eventual hostilities to determine which Christians were true Christians and which were not. The same would have occurred had the Founder's said America was going to be a Baptist country. Naturally non-Baptists would have revolted and there would have been disputes between various Baptists over which Baptists were "true Baptists".

 

Considering 90+% of the people considered themselves to be Christian, and those of a wide variety of types and stripes, there had to be a measure of freedom guaranteed at the national level. Since the vast majority of those "Christians" were secular Christians, not born again Christians, there was no way a truly Christian nation could be established.

 

While I would have called for at least a bit of restrictive language to the freedom of religion amendment even if it were there it wouldn't have cured everything. The Founder's did what they had to do in order to gain a nation through compromise.

 

I agree here too.

Freedom came for us from tyranny, but allowed false teachings to be allowed in our so-called Christian society.

[HappyChristian]

Actually, John, states were supposed to to be republic in style of government as well. Just making a point. :-D

And there is no proof to back up the claim that the vast majority of "Christians" at the founding were secular and thus not really Christian. Many prOBably were. But vast majority? Not likely.

Other than that, I mostly agree with you, John.