IF believer In Doctrines of Grace, Why baptists and NOT presby?

[JesusFan]

DHK had a good point on prior discussion thread...

why would one choose baptist over presby IF hold to DoG?

 

[Ruiz]

DHK had a good point on prior discussion thread...

why would one choose baptist over presby IF hold to DoG?

There are two basic reason why I am a Baptist.

First, historically Baptists have a rich heritage in their embracing of the Doctrines of Grace. Until the 20th Century, our numbers were far greater. People like John Bunyan, Isaac Bauckus, John Leland and Charles Spurgeon were all great Baptists who held to the Doctrines of Grace. Even our confessions were mostly Calvinistic.

Secondly, Presbyterians were traditionally Calvinistic but so were other groups. Congregationalists and other groups were Calvinistic throughout history. Presbyterianism denotes a specific church government and includes paedo-baptism. I do not hold to either belief.

 

[glfredrick]

Here is a classic example of the error that so many on the board make, i.e., equating a theological doctrine, Calvinism in this case, that merely lays out a logical order for soteriology and turning it into a both a complete over-arching belief system and more, a denominational stance.

We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.

~ Benjamin Franklin

 

[annsni]

I'm Baptist because I preferred the Baptist church in the area over the Presbyterian church. The Presbyterian churches around here are all PCUSA and all but one fell off the theologically sound wagon years ago and that one that stood firm was having difficulty with some other issues. But if there were a solid Presbyterian church around her that was not PCUSA and there was not a good Baptist church, I'd definitely go Pres. My husband was even an elder in the Pres church when we attended!

 

[preacher4truth]

I'm a Baptist because God predestined me to be such.

I'll have to say that some Presbyterian churches are much more solid doctrinely than some non-cal Baptist churches.

The logical end of non-cal, anti-cal, free-will theology would land them in the WOF camp, where if man doesn't allow God "in" by choice then He cannot do a thing. There have been some here who have proposed this fallacious doctrine.

So my point is, since they believe this, why not just become WOF/Charismatic?

 

[Ruiz]

The more I thought about this question, the more I thought this is similar to asking the other side, "why don't you join the Methodists or Wesleyans?"

 

[Amy.G]

The logical end of non-cal, anti-cal, free-will theology would land them in the WOF camp, where if man doesn't allow God "in" by choice then He cannot do a thing. There have been some here who have proposed this fallacious doctrine.

We could also say that the logical end to Calvinism is that nothing matters because God has already predestined everything.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

So my point is, since they believe this, why not just become WOF/Charismatic?

Because they are heretics.

 

[JesusFan]

Here is a classic example of the error that so many on the board make, i.e., equating a theological doctrine, Calvinism in this case, that merely lays out a logical order for soteriology and turning it into a both a complete over-arching belief system and more, a denominational stance.

I have always seen calvanism as refering to mainly the doctrine of Sotierology, as some here also include in that definition an entire system that includeds mode of baptism/govt structure/eschatology etc!

 

[preachinjesus]

Because ecclesiology is different from soteriology.

 

[glfredrick]

I have always seen calvanism as refering to mainly the doctrine of Sotierology, as some here also include in that definition an entire system that includeds mode of baptism/govt structure/eschatology etc!

They are wrong... Calvinism does not equal Calvin, nor does it equal Presbyterian, etc. That is a false dichotomy. As many Baptists have been Calvinistic as have anyone else in the history of the church, and current buzz word aside ("Calvinism") the Doctrines of Grace predate Calvin by, oh, 1500 years or so. :laugh:

From Article III of the 1644 London Confession:

III.
That God hath11 decreed in himself from everlasting touching all things, effectually to work and dispose them12 according to the counsel of his own will, to the glory of his Name; in which decree appeareth his wisdom, constancy, truth, and faithfulness;13 Wisdom is that whereby he contrives all things;14 Constancy is that whereby the decree of God remains always immutable;15 Truth is that whereby he declares that alone which he hath decreed, and though his sayings may seem to sound sometimes another thing, yet the sense of them doth always agree with the decree;16 Faithfulness is that whereby he effects that he hath decreed, as he hath decreed. And touching his creature man,17 God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of his grace,18 leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his Justice.

Doesn't get much more Calvinistic than that!

Especially interesting is their take on this:

15 Truth is that whereby he declares that alone which he hath decreed, and though his sayings may seem to sound sometimes another thing, yet the sense of them doth always agree with the decree

This comes right to the core of the argument that I make often on the board. God is not divided! He is sound, whole, and of one mind, knowing all things past, present, and future, and by His holy nature, complete, lacking nothing, even though it might seem to us by interpretation through our own experiential eyes otherwise.

Simply stated, God is God and nothing less, always and forever. :thumbsup:

 

[12strings]

I think people are missing the very obvious answer to the OP:

1. Because be believe in Believers Baptism as opposed to paedobaptism. ("Baptist")

2. Because we do not believe in a Presbytry that oversees multiple churches (Presbyterian).

How much clearer could it be?

 

[12strings]

Also, Regarding What exactly is "calvinism" there are some presbyterians who would say that a reformed Baptist is not really a true calvinist, niether are they truly "reformed" since they do not baptize babies, hold to a presbyterian ecclesiology, and might not hold to covenant theology. For them, it all goes together.

Also, (we'll call this "also #2): I would think that a biblically consisitent Charismatic would need to be fairly calvinistic if he believed that God gave the gifts of tongues and prophesy, rather than those gifts being invoked by whoever had the right techniques.

 

[preacher4truth]

We could also say that the logical end to Calvinism is that nothing matters because God has already predestined everything.
I think the truth lies somewhere in between.



Because they are heretics.

I hear what you're saying Amy.

The logical end of Calvinism is that the theology is solid and shows forth the truth of the Sriptures. For example of comparison, Christianity is truth, yet, there are those who come in and distort that truth. The same thing can happen in any theology, a person can corrupt it. Thus I believe "hyper calvinism" to be false teaching, and is not representative of truth, but is cunningly deceptive, sounding reasonable to man to believe it.

WOF/Charismatics, yes, they are heretical. The major point of the heresy is in the fact that they teach Gods Sovereignty is bound until man allows God to work via belief, otherwise He is helpless to work. The error stems from this major premise: a false understanding and teaching of faith. Several share this same false teaching concerning faith within some Baptist churches.

God is not helpless "until man" exercises faith. He is instead Sovereign, and does as He wills to do. He is not activated like a bellhop by "mans" faith. This is one reason the Scriptures teach true faith is a gift of God. True faith lies within an object, in this case God, and is not merely subjective and inherent, but is instead objective, from God. When man thinks it is inherent, which is in itself error, and when this false premise is taken to extreme, in that it is "magic" and has some kind of "power" within itself, limiting Gods abilities, is false teaching. Instead, real faith comes from God, via His Word. Man does not get the credit in any way.

Keep in mind, I am not saying that you teach this, as I know you do not, yet there are some that would teach God cannot do a thing "until man" exercises faith.

 

[Amy.G]

I think people are missing the very obvious answer to the OP:

1. Because be believe in Believers Baptism as opposed to paedobaptism. ("Baptist")

2. Because we do not believe in a Presbytry that oversees multiple churches (Presbyterian).

How much clearer could it be?

Look, if you're going to come in here and offer a simple, accurate answer to the OP, then you apparently aren't BB material. :laugh::laugh:

You must fight and argue and call everyone else a heretic. That's the BB way! :laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

I think people are missing the very obvious answer to the OP:

1. Because be believe in Believers Baptism as opposed to paedobaptism. ("Baptist")

2. Because we do not believe in a Presbytry that oversees multiple churches (Presbyterian).

How much clearer could it be?

You are correct, that is the dividing ground.

 

[Amy.G]

WOF/Charismatics, yes, they are heretical. The major point of the heresy is in the fact that they teach Gods Sovereignty is bound until man allows God to work via belief, otherwise He is helpless to work.

I would take this a step further and say that they believe that God must obey them! I have heard some of their preachers say that God is "obligated" to do whatever they ask.

 

[preacher4truth]

I would take this a step further and say that they believe that God must obey them! I have heard some of their preachers say that God is "obligated" to do whatever they ask.

:thumbsup:

Exactly, according to the faith "within" them. These are taught to "muster up" this faith. This all goes back to the wrong view, and unscriptural view of faith. I heard Dr. Lutzer say something like this today, "God is not simply a bigger one of us."

 

[Jerome]

Refreshingly candid statements from "Founders" founder Ernest Reisinger, describing Grace Baptist Church, Carlisle, Pa. (from his autobiography):

We all seem to lean to the Presbyterian idea of elders and deacons

We are a congregation of Baptists that is almost Presbyterian

 

[Jerome]

And incisive observations from his brother John Reisinger:

http://solochristo.com/theology/Church/reiwh.htm

The following article is written primarily for Reformed Baptists only because that is the group with which I have been identified for over twenty years. . . .One of the greatest tragedies of our past efforts as Baptists was our use of nothing but Presbyterian literature. We set up the conferences, got those to attend whom we had taught the truth of grace, and then we stuffed Presbyterian books and speakers down their throat by the carload. . . .In Africa, the evangelical missionaries taught the people to read and then the communists gave them literature. In our case, it was even worse. We Baptist did both for the Presbyterians. We taught people the doctrines of grace, and then we gave them nothing but books written by Covenant Theologians.

http://www.soundofgrace.com/jgr/index042.htm

Historically Baptists have taken the congregational form of government. They have resisted both the idea of a Presbytery past the local church and putting the final authority of the local church into the office of eldership. Baptist congregations in the past have had elders but always those elders were subject to the rule of the congregation. The pastor and elders functioned as leaders of the congregation, and as such, their views (rightly so) have great influence. But ultimately, the congregation chose whether or not to accept the recommendations of the pastor and elders. It is at this point that some present-day Baptists (mostly Reformed Baptists) have departed from both the Bible and their Baptist forefathers. They have adopted the Presbyterian view of eldership and put the authority of the church in the hands of the eldership, thereby rejecting congregational rule. However, they have also rejected the idea of a Presbytery, or any authority, beyond the local church. They have destroyed the checks and balance established by the Presbytery. This is a hybrid view of authority of recent origin. It is really 'Baptist' Catholicism.

 

[Luke2427]

Look, if you're going to come in here and offer a simple, accurate answer to the OP, then you apparently aren't BB material. :laugh::laugh:

You must fight and argue and call everyone else a heretic. That's the BB way! :laugh:

And I thought we were getting along swimmingly! :laugh:

Just to be clear- I only assault things as heresy that ARE heresy.

And all of us are SUPPOSED to do that.