What Theological Contributions Have Protestants Made?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You make a very valid point Padre We tend not to question if what we read of say a Shakespeare play of work of Plato or some other great philosopher of old is valid but yet people will argue all day over Biblical manuscripts. …
Just so you know, there is MUCH debate over the authenticity of Shakespeare’s plays (I don’t know about Plato, but I would imagine that there has been much scholarship on both Plato and Socrates, as well, and the degree to which Plato is capturing Socrates accurately, faithfully, or even just creating him whole cloth). The historicity (and apologetics) of his “histories” is much discussed and debated.

But certainly, in the case of Shakespeare, there is not a world-wide theological debate over “literal readings” of his admitted fictions; we all know that “Macbeth” is not the tale of a literal king who literally did these things, and no one organizes world-wide Churches of faith in his name nor launches on Crusades nor conducts inquisitions or conversions or baptisms or marriages in his glory.

The comparison is a bit faulty. It is better to compare Christian debates to debates in other religions.
 
no, i stand for what i said. it was based on the CC teachings. i dont care who signed.
Which CC teaching about the US Constitution can you possibly mean? I have NEVER heard of such a teaching, and no one here among the Catholics is helping you out on that one.

You “don’t care” who actually crafted it? Now you are just being stubborn.

The Constitution was crafted by non-Catholics. This is so apparent that it is almost ridiculous to have to bother pointing out.
 
Just so you know, there is MUCH debate over the authenticity of Shakespeare’s plays (I don’t know about Plato, but I would imagine that there has been much scholarship on both Plato and Socrates, as well, and the degree to which Plato is capturing Socrates accurately, faithfully, or even just creating him whole cloth). The historicity (and apologetics) of his “histories” is much discussed and debated.

But certainly, in the case of Shakespeare, there is not a world-wide theological debate over “literal readings” of his admitted fictions; we all know that “Macbeth” is not the tale of a literal king who literally did these things, and no one organizes world-wide Churches of faith in his name nor launches on Crusades nor conducts inquisitions or conversions or baptisms or marriages in his glory.

The comparison is a bit faulty. It is better to compare Christian debates to debates in other religions.
The point we are trying to make is that nobody really gives such scrutinizing question to ancient philosophers work and some (I will add some here to qualify this) works of Shakespeare that they do the Bible. I agree with you 100% MacBeth is not a tale of a literal king but one that was pulled from historical sources. You can find many similarities in many of Shakespeare’s plays to actual persons, but it is doubtful they did the actual things portrayed of them in the play.

It is rather akin to wisdomseeker saying that the constitution was written based on Catholic principles. Granted if you look hard enough you could say most everything there are Catholic principles but that does not make the document a Catholic one when it was written by Protestants. Even Fr John admits that he has heard of no Catholic teaching on the matter.(and even posted the writers and their Protestant backgrounds) Why not look at the constitution and say, “well everything there is the teachings of the Koran or Buddha so it had to have been written ofter those teachings.” It IS safe to say it is a Judeo-Christian document as all the founders were of that ilk and invoked God. But to say it is a Catholic Document and state no source to back the claims I cannot find the validity. One would think, as you pointed out, that persons would be running to wisomseeker’s aid if the statements were true.

Thank you for the point of clarification on Shakespeare.
 
The point we are trying to make is that nobody really gives such scrutinizing question to ancient philosophers work …
So? Plato is not claiming to write about God incarnate on earth in the form of Socrates who works miracles (including dying and living again in the flesh) and will bring about the destruction and salvation of the world. Literally.
 
So? Plato is not claiming to write about God incarnate on earth in the form of Socrates who works miracles (including dying and living again in the flesh) and will bring about the destruction and salvation of the world. Literally.
Alright twist and use my words when you know darn well what I meant. Nobody is speaking of the CONTENT of their work just the actual work itself as being authentic. Seems hardly a cant few question the validity of the ancient writers when only a few manuscripts exist, but will question for hours on end the authenticity of the Bible in which we have far greater numbers of manuscripts to compare back on. THAT is what my post was about.
Honestly I do not know how you could make such a leap as your last comment after reading all my posts in the vein unless you wanted to pick a fight. I will not dignify to answer you Plato question either as this was not germane to what was being discussed here. I studied enough of the early Greek philosophers in seminary and my debating over them is not for this thread.
 
Alright twist and use my words when you know darn well what I meant. Nobody is speaking of the CONTENT of their work just the actual work itself as being authentic. Seems hardly a cant few question the validity of the ancient writers when only a few manuscripts exist, but will question for hours on end the authenticity of the Bible in which we have far greater numbers of manuscripts to compare back on. THAT is what my post was about.
Honestly I do not know how you could make such a leap as your last comment after reading all my posts in the vein unless you wanted to pick a fight. I will not dignify to answer you Plato question either as this was not germane to what was being discussed here. I studied enough of the early Greek philosophers in seminary and my debating over them is not for this thread.
Why are you so touchy? I meant no disrespect and was following your words exactly. Since I am an English teacher, I am aware of some of the literary debates around the authorship and accuracy of some of the major literary figures of the west.

And now I have more: What do you mean by people questioning “the authenticity” of the Bible? How do you mean this word “authenticity”? Do you mean that many people question who wrote its parts? Or do you mean many people question its religious truth? Of course, many people do both of these, but I want to know which one you mean before I respond further.
 
Why are you so touchy? I meant no disrespect and was following your words exactly. Since I am an English teacher, I am aware of some of the literary debates around the authorship and accuracy of some of the major literary figures of the west.

And now I have more: What do you mean by people questioning “the authenticity” of the Bible? How do you mean this word “authenticity”? Do you mean that many people question who wrote its parts? Or do you mean many people question its religious truth? Of course, many people do both of these, but I want to know which one you mean before I respond further.
OK people question both the authenticity and accuracy. as has been posted to this thread before, we can go back over the years and see almost no change in the scriptures (except the removal of the apocrypha during the 1800.s as it was cheaper to produce Bibles for the masses that way). When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found we now have manuscripts that predate any previous by many hundreds of years. When checked back and compared to the accuracy of the OT there have been almost NO changes. what changes have been made are more on the line of a grammatical punctuation type of change. My point was on the accuracy only.

You are always going to have people question the writers of the Bible. Some will say you cannot take parts literally while others will say you cannot take the whole literally. Some interpret in a wooden literal sense while others do not. There are some parts of the Bible that you simply cannot take as literal. For example, when Jesus cries out “Jerusalem how I wanted to take you under my wing as a mother hen,” you cannot interpret this that God is a big chicken. In the book of Revelation there are many things that John wrote about that you also cannot take literally, what gives you the clue is the words “like” or “as” in front of them. John was seeing something he could not fully comprehend so he could only describe it with words that he and he readers would understand. Case in point, the giant locusts that breath fire, the word “like” appears before this so you cannot take these verses in a wooden literal sense. What was John seeing? think a minute if you moved a person from ancient Palestine forward in time and asked them to describe an Apache helicopter in flight that just fired a helfire rocket. Head on the Apache looks like a giant locust that spit fire. (I am not saying that this is what John saw, I am just giving an example). For this reason It would take volumes of thread space to debate the “religious truth” of parts of the Bible only meant to be taken in a figurative sense as you have some who will always take these sections as literal.
 
OK people question both the authenticity and accuracy. as has been posted to this thread before, we can go back over the years and see almost no change in the scriptures (except the removal of the apocrypha during the 1800.s as it was cheaper to produce Bibles for the masses that way). When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found we now have manuscripts that predate any previous by many hundreds of years. When checked back and compared to the accuracy of the OT there have been almost NO changes. what changes have been made are more on the line of a grammatical punctuation type of change. My point was on the accuracy only.
Who is questioning interpolations in this thread? I don’t see how the issue of manuscript changes over time is relevant here at all. If you mean “accuracy to the actual words spoken of Jesus,” well, that is a different issue–but also one not being debated much here.
You are always going to have people question the writers of the Bible. Some will say you cannot take parts literally while others will say you cannot take the whole literally. Some interpret in a wooden literal sense while others do not. There are some parts of the Bible that you simply cannot take as literal. For example, when Jesus cries out “Jerusalem how I wanted to take you under my wing as a mother hen,” you cannot interpret this that God is a big chicken. In the book of Revelation there are many things that John wrote about that you also cannot take literally, what gives you the clue is the words “like” or “as” in front of them. John was seeing something he could not fully comprehend so he could only describe it with words that he and he readers would understand. Case in point, the giant locusts that breath fire, the word “like” appears before this so you cannot take these verses in a wooden literal sense. What was John seeing? think a minute if you moved a person from ancient Palestine forward in time and asked them to describe an Apache helicopter in flight that just fired a helfire rocket. Head on the Apache looks like a giant locust that spit fire. (I am not saying that this is what John saw, I am just giving an example). For this reason It would take volumes of thread space to debate the “religious truth” of parts of the Bible only meant to be taken in a figurative sense as you have some who will always take these sections as literal.
No one is confused by the use of similes. That is not the issue at all (or only among the most ignorant/least sophisticated).

I’ve already forgotten: what was the connection here to “contributions of Protestants”?
 
Who is questioning interpolations in this thread? I don’t see how the issue of manuscript changes over time is relevant here at all. If you mean “accuracy to the actual words spoken of Jesus,” well, that is a different issue–but also one not being debated much here.

No one is confused by the use of similes. That is not the issue at all (or only among the most ignorant/least sophisticated).

I’ve already forgotten: what was the connection here to “contributions of Protestants”?
This conversation on this came about regarding the Greek interpretation of Matthew as a side note. You could tie the protestant removal of the Apocrypha to this thread as a contribution to faster distribution of Bibles in the 1800’s, but that is another matter.
Correct me if I am wrong but you asked me to clarify my position on a post. I don’t know if you were itching for a debate on the subject or not but it is certainly not for this thread, as is the accuracy of the words of Jesus. (I don’t know why you would want to argue over did Jesus really say this or do that is beyond me)

If there is something that Protestants have been able to do is be quick to debate when there is nothing to debate about, I suppose we could add that to the list of “Protestant contributions” to theology- arguing for the sake of argument, albeit it is not a good point to brag about.
 
This conversation on this came about regarding the Greek interpretation of Matthew as a side note. You could tie the protestant removal of the Apocrypha to this thread as a contribution to faster distribution of Bibles in the 1800’s, but that is another matter.
Correct me if I am wrong but you asked me to clarify my position on a post. I don’t know if you were itching for a debate on the subject or not but it is certainly not for this thread, as is the accuracy of the words of Jesus. (I don’t know why you would want to argue over did Jesus really say this or do that is beyond me)

If there is something that Protestants have been able to do is be quick to debate when there is nothing to debate about, I suppose we could add that to the list of “Protestant contributions” to theology- arguing for the sake of argument, albeit it is not a good point to brag about.
Padre if you ask me there are some Catholics who are just as ready to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin type arguments than Protestants when the time could be better spent on reconciliation.
Larkin31 may I suggest we move on to a new line of questions, Padrej merely made a comment in passing about the authenticity of the Bible and how people are ready to argue over the manuscripts but rarly will question works with little authenticity.
 
I can’t think of any theological contributions that Protestants have made to Christianity as a whole.

Can you?

If true, then why is this the case?
God said that those to adds or takes away from the Bible are ACCURSED. So what ‘contributions’ are you expecting?

Revelation 22:18 -I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 - and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

.
 
Padre if you ask me there are some Catholics who are just as ready to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin type arguments than Protestants when the time could be better spent on reconciliation.
Larkin31 may I suggest we move on to a new line of questions, Padrej merely made a comment in passing about the authenticity of the Bible and how people are ready to argue over the manuscripts but rarly will question works with little authenticity.
roger
 
God said that those to adds or takes away from the Bible are ACCURSED. So what ‘contributions’ are you expecting?

Revelation 22:18 -I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 - and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

.
For heaven’s sake, we’re not talking about adding to or taking away from scripture.

St Augustine neither added to nor took away from scripture, but he sure as heck deepened our understanding of it immeasurably!

THAT is what good theology does and THAT is the sort of contribution we are discussing.
 
While you make a valid point that the number of manuscripts is no guarantee of accuracy, it does stand to reason that in all of those from oldest to newest that there has been little to no change.
There is a significant amount of textual variation, but certainly we can be reasonably confident (by purely secular means) that modern versions of the Bible represent something very close to the text the original author wrote. My point is that all the really difficult questions start when we ask who that original author was and how what he or she wrote corresponds to historical reality. And textual evidence can’t help us there.

I know that many people express doubts about the Bible in terms of manuscript transmission–my students seem to worry about this a lot more than they worry about the “higher critical” issues. And your argument works to allay those rather uninformed fears. But the serious objections to the “authenticity” of Scripture have absolutely nothing to do with this, because they concern what lies behind the “original autograph” from which all our current textual variants derive.

Textual criticism certainly helps Christian apologetics–we’d be much less able to argue for the historicity of the Gospel of Mark if we couldn’t start from the reasonable certainty that something like the text we have (minus chap. 16, vv. 9-20) was written not much later than A.D. 70. My point is simply that the most serious objections to historicity start where textual issues stop.

Edwin
 
There is a significant amount of textual variation, but certainly we can be reasonably confident (by purely secular means) that modern versions of the Bible represent something very close to the text the original author wrote. My point is that all the really difficult questions start when we ask who that original author was and how what he or she wrote corresponds to historical reality. And textual evidence can’t help us there.
 
There is a significant amount of textual variation, but certainly we can be reasonably confident (by purely secular means) that modern versions of the Bible represent something very close to the text the original author wrote. My point is that all the really difficult questions start when we ask who that original author was and how what he or she wrote corresponds to historical reality. And textual evidence can’t help us there.

I know that many people express doubts about the Bible in terms of manuscript transmission–my students seem to worry about this a lot more than they worry about the “higher critical” issues. And your argument works to allay those rather uninformed fears. But the serious objections to the “authenticity” of Scripture have absolutely nothing to do with this, because they concern what lies behind the “original autograph” from which all our current textual variants derive.

Textual criticism certainly helps Christian apologetics–we’d be much less able to argue for the historicity of the Gospel of Mark if we couldn’t start from the reasonable certainty that something like the text we have (minus chap. 16, vv. 9-20) was written not much later than A.D. 70. My point is simply that the most serious objections to historicity start where textual issues stop.

Edwin
I would be curious to know specifically your thoughts on “textural variations” as well. To what specifically are you referring; ie manuscript to manuscript, Greek-v-KJV-v-other translations, textus receptus -v- critical text

I also agree with Fr John that the Early church fathers put the Mark 16 “controversy” to rest; Justin Martyr (155AD) Tatian (170AD) and Irenaeus (180AD) all spoke to the verses in question being valid. All other known manuscripts with the exception of the 2 mentioned by Fr. John have these verses so for this reason, along with the blank area in the two in question it stood to reason that these verses were correct.

Curiosity question? You list yourself as Episcopalian, do you follow the teaching of Bishop Spong that Fr. John brought up? It appalled me to read his words that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier and the “cover up story” was that “the Holy Ghost impregnated her.” How could the man recite the Creeds in church stating “I believe”??? But then I have noticed the change in many denominations to the “We believe” so that “we as a general whole may believe this, but I don’t” will hold true. IMO that leads to a weaker faith. Too many died as martyrs saying “I believe” to change that.
 
I know I may catch flack for posting this BUT, has anyone thought of the contributions of the African Americans to the Protestant movement.
ones like …
The Rev. Andrew Bryan 1737-1812
Andrew Bryan was born in slavery and grew up as a slave on a plantation in South Carolina. In 1782, Andrew and his wife Hannah became Christians under the preaching of the Rev. George Liele (1752 - 1828), an African American born into slavery who ministered the Gospel to other slaves. (Liele was the first African American ordained as a Baptist preacher.) Only nine months after his conversion, Andrew – still a slave – was preaching to both black and white congregations. He evangelized slaves on neighboring plantations and erected a crude wooden church; his congregation grew rapidly, attended by both blacks and whites. On January 20, 1788, Bryan was ordained as a Baptist minister.
Upon the death of his “master” in 1790, Andrew purchased his freedom and that of his wife. In 1794, several influential whites helped him raise the money to purchase property upon which to build a new church – the Bryan Street African Baptist Church (the first black Baptist church in America). Andrew then purchased a lot near the church upon which to build his home.

Within six years, the church had grown to almost 700 members (a large church at any time, it definitely was a mega-church in that era). In 1800, the church was reorganized as the First African Baptist Church of Savannah, and one of its ministries was a black Sabbath school – the first in the city. However, because Andrew’s goal was not simply to have a large congregation and an impressive church, in 1802 he deliberately split the congregation and planted a new church: the Second African Baptist Church of Savannah (its pastor, Henry Francis, started a school in the church to educate black children). The church growth continued, and in 1803 Andrew split the church again, forming the Third African Baptist Church of Savannah. As these churches grew, their congregations pioneered churches in other parts of the State.

The Rev. “Black Harry” Hoosier (or Hosier) 1750-1810
Harry Hoosier was born a slave in North Carolina, but toward the end of the American Revolution he obtained his freedom, converted to Methodism, and became a preacher. In 1781, he delivered a sermon in Virginia entitled “The Barren Fig Tree” – the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American. Despite the fact that Hoosier was illiterate, he became famous as a traveling evangelist and was considered one of the most popular preachers of his era. In fact, after hearing Harry preach in and around Philadelphia, Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an evangelical Christian, declared that accounting for his illiteracy, Hoosier was “the greatest orator in America.”

The Rev. John Marrant 1755-1791
John Marrant was born in New York in 1755. His father died early in John’s life; and in 1766 when John was eleven, his mother sent him to Charleston, South Carolina, to live with an older sister and learn a trade. After arriving in Charleston, John had a change of plans; as he explained: “I had passed by a school and heard music and dancing, which took my fancy very much; and I felt a strong inclination to learn the music. I went home and informed my sister that I would rather learn music than go to a trade.” John therefore undertook the study of music and became skilled with both the violin and the French horn.According to John, within two years (while he was only thirteen years of age): “I was invited to all the balls and assemblies that were held in the town, and met with general applause of the inhabitants. I was a stranger to want, being supplied with as much money as I had any occasion for.”

On his way to play at one of those musical events, John and a friend passed a crowded meetinghouse. John noticed that the large crowd was gathered around “a crazy man halloing there.” The “crazy man” was the Rev. George Whitefield, and the assembly was one of many religious meetings that occurred during the First Great Awakening – a national spiritual revival that lasted from 1730-1770.

Once on a missionary travel when the Cherokee chieftain threatened John with death, John addressed the Cherokees in their own language and shared with them the Gospel of Christ. According to Marrant, “The king [the chief ] himself was awakened, and the others set at [spiritual] liberty. A great change took place among the people; the King’s house became God’s house; the soldiers were ordered away; and the poor condemned prisoner [Marrant] had perfect liberty and was treated like a prince. Now the Lord made all my enemies become my great friends.” Thus being released from his captivity, the chief granted Marrant permission to evangelize among the Cherokee – which he did for the next nine weeks, also evangelizing among the Muskogees. As noted by African American historian Arthur Schomburg (1874-1938), Marrant was: “A Negro in America [like] the Jesuits of old, who spread the seed of Christianity among the American Indians before the birth of the American Republic.”

These are but thumbnails of 3.

Source link:
wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=136
 
I know I may catch flack for posting this BUT, has anyone thought of the contributions of the African Americans to the Protestant movement.
ones like …
The Rev. Andrew Bryan 1737-1812
Andrew Bryan was born in slavery and grew up as a slave on a plantation in South Carolina. In 1782, Andrew and his wife Hannah became Christians under the preaching of the Rev. George Liele (1752 - 1828), an African American born into slavery who ministered the Gospel to other slaves. (Liele was the first African American ordained as a Baptist preacher.) Only nine months after his conversion, Andrew – still a slave – was preaching to both black and white congregations. He evangelized slaves on neighboring plantations and erected a crude wooden church; his congregation grew rapidly, attended by both blacks and whites. On January 20, 1788, Bryan was ordained as a Baptist minister.
Upon the death of his “master” in 1790, Andrew purchased his freedom and that of his wife. In 1794, several influential whites helped him raise the money to purchase property upon which to build a new church – the Bryan Street African Baptist Church (the first black Baptist church in America). Andrew then purchased a lot near the church upon which to build his home.

Within six years, the church had grown to almost 700 members (a large church at any time, it definitely was a mega-church in that era). In 1800, the church was reorganized as the First African Baptist Church of Savannah, and one of its ministries was a black Sabbath school – the first in the city. However, because Andrew’s goal was not simply to have a large congregation and an impressive church, in 1802 he deliberately split the congregation and planted a new church: the Second African Baptist Church of Savannah (its pastor, Henry Francis, started a school in the church to educate black children). The church growth continued, and in 1803 Andrew split the church again, forming the Third African Baptist Church of Savannah. As these churches grew, their congregations pioneered churches in other parts of the State.

The Rev. “Black Harry” Hoosier (or Hosier) 1750-1810
Harry Hoosier was born a slave in North Carolina, but toward the end of the American Revolution he obtained his freedom, converted to Methodism, and became a preacher. In 1781, he delivered a sermon in Virginia entitled “The Barren Fig Tree” – the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American. Despite the fact that Hoosier was illiterate, he became famous as a traveling evangelist and was considered one of the most popular preachers of his era. In fact, after hearing Harry preach in and around Philadelphia, Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an evangelical Christian, declared that accounting for his illiteracy, Hoosier was “the greatest orator in America.”

The Rev. John Marrant 1755-1791
John Marrant was born in New York in 1755. His father died early in John’s life; and in 1766 when John was eleven, his mother sent him to Charleston, South Carolina, to live with an older sister and learn a trade. After arriving in Charleston, John had a change of plans; as he explained: “I had passed by a school and heard music and dancing, which took my fancy very much; and I felt a strong inclination to learn the music. I went home and informed my sister that I would rather learn music than go to a trade.” John therefore undertook the study of music and became skilled with both the violin and the French horn.According to John, within two years (while he was only thirteen years of age): “I was invited to all the balls and assemblies that were held in the town, and met with general applause of the inhabitants. I was a stranger to want, being supplied with as much money as I had any occasion for.”

On his way to play at one of those musical events, John and a friend passed a crowded meetinghouse. John noticed that the large crowd was gathered around “a crazy man halloing there.” The “crazy man” was the Rev. George Whitefield, and the assembly was one of many religious meetings that occurred during the First Great Awakening – a national spiritual revival that lasted from 1730-1770.

Once on a missionary travel when the Cherokee chieftain threatened John with death, John addressed the Cherokees in their own language and shared with them the Gospel of Christ. According to Marrant, “The king [the chief ] himself was awakened, and the others set at [spiritual] liberty. A great change took place among the people; the King’s house became God’s house; the soldiers were ordered away; and the poor condemned prisoner [Marrant] had perfect liberty and was treated like a prince. Now the Lord made all my enemies become my great friends.” Thus being released from his captivity, the chief granted Marrant permission to evangelize among the Cherokee – which he did for the next nine weeks, also evangelizing among the Muskogees. As noted by African American historian Arthur Schomburg (1874-1938), Marrant was: “A Negro in America [like] the Jesuits of old, who spread the seed of Christianity among the American Indians before the birth of the American Republic.”

These are but thumbnails of 3.

Source link:
wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=136
IMO the only ones who would give you flack are the ones who would be uncomfortable to admit the contributions of Protestants who were African American. Too often we forget those who are not like us in skin color when it comes to accomplishments.
 
I know I may catch flack for posting this BUT, has anyone thought of the contributions of the African Americans to the Protestant movement.
ones like …
The Rev. Andrew Bryan 1737-1812
Andrew Bryan was born in slavery and grew up as a slave on a plantation in South Carolina. In 1782, Andrew and his wife Hannah became Christians under the preaching of the Rev. George Liele (1752 - 1828), an African American born into slavery who ministered the Gospel to other slaves. (Liele was the first African American ordained as a Baptist preacher.) Only nine months after his conversion, Andrew – still a slave – was preaching to both black and white congregations. He evangelized slaves on neighboring plantations and erected a crude wooden church; his congregation grew rapidly, attended by both blacks and whites. On January 20, 1788, Bryan was ordained as a Baptist minister.
Upon the death of his “master” in 1790, Andrew purchased his freedom and that of his wife. In 1794, several influential whites helped him raise the money to purchase property upon which to build a new church – the Bryan Street African Baptist Church (the first black Baptist church in America). Andrew then purchased a lot near the church upon which to build his home.

Within six years, the church had grown to almost 700 members (a large church at any time, it definitely was a mega-church in that era). In 1800, the church was reorganized as the First African Baptist Church of Savannah, and one of its ministries was a black Sabbath school – the first in the city. However, because Andrew’s goal was not simply to have a large congregation and an impressive church, in 1802 he deliberately split the congregation and planted a new church: the Second African Baptist Church of Savannah (its pastor, Henry Francis, started a school in the church to educate black children). The church growth continued, and in 1803 Andrew split the church again, forming the Third African Baptist Church of Savannah. As these churches grew, their congregations pioneered churches in other parts of the State.

The Rev. “Black Harry” Hoosier (or Hosier) 1750-1810
Harry Hoosier was born a slave in North Carolina, but toward the end of the American Revolution he obtained his freedom, converted to Methodism, and became a preacher. In 1781, he delivered a sermon in Virginia entitled “The Barren Fig Tree” – the first recorded Methodist sermon by an African American. Despite the fact that Hoosier was illiterate, he became famous as a traveling evangelist and was considered one of the most popular preachers of his era. In fact, after hearing Harry preach in and around Philadelphia, Dr. Benjamin Rush (1745-1813), a signer of the Declaration of Independence and an evangelical Christian, declared that accounting for his illiteracy, Hoosier was “the greatest orator in America.”

The Rev. John Marrant 1755-1791
John Marrant was born in New York in 1755. His father died early in John’s life; and in 1766 when John was eleven, his mother sent him to Charleston, South Carolina, to live with an older sister and learn a trade. After arriving in Charleston, John had a change of plans; as he explained: “I had passed by a school and heard music and dancing, which took my fancy very much; and I felt a strong inclination to learn the music. I went home and informed my sister that I would rather learn music than go to a trade.” John therefore undertook the study of music and became skilled with both the violin and the French horn.According to John, within two years (while he was only thirteen years of age): “I was invited to all the balls and assemblies that were held in the town, and met with general applause of the inhabitants. I was a stranger to want, being supplied with as much money as I had any occasion for.”

On his way to play at one of those musical events, John and a friend passed a crowded meetinghouse. John noticed that the large crowd was gathered around “a crazy man halloing there.” The “crazy man” was the Rev. George Whitefield, and the assembly was one of many religious meetings that occurred during the First Great Awakening – a national spiritual revival that lasted from 1730-1770.

Once on a missionary travel when the Cherokee chieftain threatened John with death, John addressed the Cherokees in their own language and shared with them the Gospel of Christ. According to Marrant, “The king [the chief ] himself was awakened, and the others set at [spiritual] liberty. A great change took place among the people; the King’s house became God’s house; the soldiers were ordered away; and the poor condemned prisoner [Marrant] had perfect liberty and was treated like a prince. Now the Lord made all my enemies become my great friends.” Thus being released from his captivity, the chief granted Marrant permission to evangelize among the Cherokee – which he did for the next nine weeks, also evangelizing among the Muskogees. As noted by African American historian Arthur Schomburg (1874-1938), Marrant was: “A Negro in America [like] the Jesuits of old, who spread the seed of Christianity among the American Indians before the birth of the American Republic.”

These are but thumbnails of 3.

Source link:
wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=136
This is rather ecumenical of you. Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top