Pietism 1675-1732 (or so)

 From Christopher Clark's Iron Kingdom: The Rise and Downfall of Prussia, 1600-1947, Chapter 5:

This account reminds me  of the history of Methodism. The idea of religious reform is always so attractive as it involves replacing a dead, formal, stuffy religious practice with lively, heart-felt Spiritual energy (as is supposed). But these movements seem to end in the same way. After a sense of progress and unity for a time, in which love and duty to fellow creatures dominate and replace concern for doctrinal purity, the movement ends, untethered to anything of substance, leaving an all-too-obvious degeneration and regression in religion. What promised to be reform and improvement, is shown to be devilish. It is a warning to the true church to proceed cautiously in all new ideas and suggestions for progress. Doctrine must be maintained, or you will end up with nothing. The early history of Methodism is thrilling. Look at them today. The Baptist history of missions can be told in a thrilling way too. Look at the Southern Baptist Convention today. Look even at the independent fundamental Baptist Churches today. I would not be a member in any of these denominations mentioned. They are blown adrift by anything now. Look at the conservative Bible schools founded over the past hundred years or so. They are liberal and compromising and ceding Biblical authority with new translations from corrupt texts. The pentecostal and tongue-speaking groups today are still in the early phase, but it is already turning to rotten fruit. I assume that those who rely too much (at all) on the will of man are impervious to my ideas.

The church needs to be revived. But just as in salvation, the efforts of man are worse than futile. Only the Lord can bring legitimate energy to the church, and the only route and influence that man may justly and Biblically take is in the labor and sweetness of prayer.

 From Edward Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter 27:

[I have been upset while reading Gibbon in the past, but this did it for me today.]

I am amazed at anyone who can uphold Ambrose as a church father worthy of respect or admiration or recognize in him some working of the Holy Spirit in harmony with evident life eternal. This is a wicked man who used his church position to influence civic affairs and supported such interference with wretched tricks of these unearthed and bloody skeletons. I have to agree with another bad man Peter Ruckman who called the church fathers the church babies. To think that Augustin supported him is a problem for me in that I have admired Augustin through the lens of Calvin. But this is too much for me. It is exacerbated by the Sunday school lessons teaching church history using these wicked and worldly men. Ruckman's language, which I do not really condone, is more understandable in the face of this deception on a grand scale by church organizations and leadership for what I would guess aids the masses in simplification and maybe apostolic succession or continuity which I do not believe the true church needs. We have the preserved Word of God in the King James Version of the Bible. Ruckman was right about that too. We do not need to trace back a continuous line of leadership to accept truth as truth. We have the testimony of the Spirit of God. We have it in earthen vessels, and we are weak, but God maintains the truth by maintaining His very Word and by His Spirit in every age. We do not need man's stamp of authenticity. Or history. Or man's false church. #Ambrose #PeterRuckman #Augustin #Paulinus #Chrysostem #KJV #churchhistory