Where is the IFB Sytematic Theology?

That's not what the text say, JF.

I don't think we have to condemn every difference of belief we find.

But I do think we are obligated to cast down EVERY pretense that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.

That is not restricted just to heresy.

For example, when a man preaches a doctrine that is not heresy but dampens evangelistic zeal- that man is to be resisted and his ideals he promotes are to be demolished.

 

No. All you do here is call for another question.

How does Spurgeon justify using our terms and our doctrines.

Whoever does this is beside the point.

The point is that your entire theology you got from the Historic Christian Faith.

These mythical baptists who are supposed to go back all the way to the Apostles- they did not hammer out the Trinity.
They did not work out the incarnation.

They HAVE NO DOCTRINE. They borrow it ALL from others.

What makes Baptists unique is not this myth that they extend all the way back to the NT.

What makes them unique is that they do not hammer out their own doctrines- they wait for others to do it for them and then pick and choose from those doctrines what they accept and what they reject.

Now if a Baptist will recognize that he is not special; that he does not have some line of his people all the way back to the NT, but that he came about the same way every other truly Christian movement came about- through Rome and Protestantism- then he can justify his ecclectic choosing among orthodox beliefs. Why? Because he is ONE OF US.

But if he is going to say, "My kind have NEVER been a part of the Historic Faith!!", then it is trashy for him to borrow EVERYTHING he believes from the Historic Faith.

If he admits he is part of the Historic Faith- then he gets to use it because it is his as much as it is the Presbyterians'.

But if he denies it, then he's trashy to deny it and at the same time use it's doctrines- so much so that he HAS NONE OF HIS OWN!

That goes for Spurgeon or anyone else.

Spurgeon was off in numerous areas, but most of us are more than willing to forgive him because of how solid he was in so many more areas.

 

No. these mystical baptists that are unconnected to Rome and Protestantism- they have no doctrines of their own. They just borrow them from the historic Faith.

He was PART of the historic Faith. He did not purport some silly notion that his people were never part of Rome; were always separate from the RCC.

He was PART of the historic Faith. He did not purport some silly notion that his people were never part of Rome; were always separate from the RCC.

That would be like saying my children BORROW food, clothing and shelter from me.

That would be stupid.

They are my progeny. What is mine is theirs.

But your mythical line of baptists are bastards, so far as the Historic Faith is concerned, are they not? I mean really- they are fatherless. Calvin has a forefathers- real ones; not made up ones like you claim.

But your mythical line of baptists have no forefathers.

They live off of our doctrines but they claim no lineage and spit on our name.

They have us to thank for their very existence but they (you) spit in our eye.

You can't borrow from that which is yours.

The Historic Christian Faith is what GAVE us our understanding of the great doctrines of the Faith like hypostasis and the Trinity.

What I believe was passed down to me by my spiritual forefathers, just as it was to Calvin. I am not borrowing from them. I am their progeny. They left it to me. It is my inheritance as a son of the Historic Christian Faith- the faith once delivered to the saints and passed down- the faith concerning which our understanding was wonderfully refined over the history of the Christian Church.

Your forefathers left you nothing (mainly because they never existed).

Instead, you steal our doctrines and spit on us.

That's what you do when you say, "We baptists did not come from the Historic Church!" and then use ALL of our doctrines because you have none of your own.



Get your own doctrines. Call the godhead something else besides the Trinity. That term and understanding belongs to us.

If you have such a rich history, you should not need to lean FULLY upon us for your existence.

Stop freeloading.

If you are not a son, then you are a thief.

 

And?

If Calvin is right about that, it is still the same thing.

DRAG to the light is not sweet language.

You're wrong, Don, and you are too proud to admit it.

All you are doing at this point, it seems to me, is DESPERATELY trying to keep from everybody seeing you drown in this debate.

There is nothing in the BIBLE more clear than how God expects us to deal with darkness.

You DEMOLISH it.

You REPROVE it.

You WITHSTAND it to the face.

You HATE it.

NO WHERE does the Bible ever say to speak softly and sweetly about evil.

You can gingerly bring a confused brother around, but in doing so you still DEMOLISH his thinking and if he bucks against it, you don't even have to handle him gingerly.

Our first resort is tenderness in handling the one in the dark, but we are plain about the darkness which engulfs him.

You probably ascribe to this bumper sticker theology that says, "Hate the sin, love the sinner."

Well DO IT. HATE the sin. HATE the sin. Hate it. HATE it and don't hide your hatred for it.

HATE darkness and don't pretend to feel otherwise about it or you are a fake.

Love the sinner. And love ON the sinner so long as there is humility. But when there is pride, you still love the sinner, but you stop loving ON him until his arrogance is broken.

Paul did not stroke Peter's brow sweetly and say, "Hey Peter... I understand why you did what you did. And I'm not saying it was terrible. But would you please consider considering that maybe you might ought to have stayed with the Gentiles- I mean, I could be wrong and I'm not judging you, mind you, but I just wanted to run it by you, my dear sweet brother."

No. The text says he got up in Peter's FACE and set him straight.

If you don't want to do that, fine. If you don't want to do what God said you are supposed to do- fine. But for heaven's sake, don't weaken the hands of those that do it.

Read Luther's Bondage of the Will some time. Read how Luther OBLITERATED Erasmus.

And Luther had little societal automatons who love to go with the flow of whatever is popular in religion at the time who would say, "Luther is a BULLY!"

But people like that do not change the world. Luther changed the world.

Have you ever read Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God?

Or better yet, have you ever read Edwards' book The Surprising Work of God wherein Edwards lays out the kind of preaching God blessed in the Great Awakening?

You ought to. It would do you a world of good on your thinking here.

I honestly believe handling darkness sweetly is as bad as the darkness itself.

We could run darkness out of this culture, if Christians were not so brainwashed by this tolerance obsessed society.

I'll just say it- if Christians had a back bone- like that which the Apostles and Prophets and godly kings and Patriarchs had- like that which the heroes of the Christian faith had.

You want me to be like everybody else in this religious culture. People who are like everybody else NEVER do great things.

The EVERYBODY ELSE is USUALLY the problem, not the answer. Doing things DIFFERENTLY from the status quo is what God requires of you, Don.

Because God does not care if people like you. God does not care if people think you are being too hard. Those same stupid automatons often think GOD is too hard. God doesn't care what they think. And God expects you not to care too. He expects you to care about proclaiming his truth the WAY he said to proclaim it.

THAT'S what ought to matter to you.

Not that I am not doing it the AVERAGE way. God HELP us when we let the average way people do things be our guide!!

I am calling on able folks in bb to STOP addressing darkness like the rest of this Christian culture expects you to address it! Who CARES if it is popular to speak softly about darkness???

DEMOLISH it! Or we perish.

Look at Europe. Compromise with darkness led to the APOSTASY of the continent.

 

I am speaking about baptists who say that they never had anything to do with the RCC and Protestantism.

I am taking about these baptists who create pseudo-history and spit on their REAL heritage.

I am talking about baptists who think that THEIR PEOPLE were never IN the Historic Christian Faith- and yet these same baptists look FULLY- I mean absolutely FULLY- to those of us who DID come from the Historic Christian Faith for their doctrines.

Our heritage is not good enough for them- but they don't mind stealing our doctrines that OUR spiritual forefathers bled over to pass down to us.

They are like orphans who move in uninvited, make a mess of our home, abuse our kids and yet eat our food, drink our water, wear our kids' clothes and insult our kids and us and our grandparents and their parents and their parents all the way back!

So I say, Produce your heroes who worked out your version of the Trinity. Athanasias was no baptist!
Why call what you believe the Trinity???

Because you NEED us to exist and spit on us while feeding off of our blood, sweat and tears.


That's not all Baptists, Don. I AM BAPTIST. But I am part of a movement that has sense enough to KNOW it is PROTESTANT.

The SBC claims to the the largest Protestant denomination in America.

We recognize our heritage.

We recognize that what we have we got from 2,000 years of Christians who sacrificed greatly to give us the understanding of the doctrines we cherish- Christians who did suffer under Rome.

So these are not the baptists to which I am referring.

Just these Baptists, yes, these TRINITARIAN baptists, who say they did not come from the Historic Christian Faith.

 

Sadly, they are probably no better informed than you.