Featured Why Should We Wish to Make Baptists of our Protestant Brethren?

If you mean "why shouldn't we intermingle our pulpits", I can give you a number of reasons why we shouldn't. But if you mean just love them as brethren, that's exactly what our brethren did while they watched them come out of the RCC. Many of our brethren wound up persecuted the exact same way by the protestants after we helped them as we did by the before mentioned Roman Catholic bunch. Sure we ought to love them if the Spirit bears witness that they're indeed brethren, but should we condone sprinkling and infant baptism or even baptismal regeneration at the same time?

Have you ever read some of the works by John Pendleton who is one of your fellow Kentuckians? See if you can find his paper on "A Landmark Reset".

If you'll notice in my signature, you'll find an old anabaptist saying. I try to live by it with as much love as there is in me. If anyway will do, no way will do just as well. Especially for our protestant brethren.

 

I would like to make Baptists out of Protestants who falsely go under the name "Baptist" like John MacArthur and John Piper type of Protestants who call themselves Baptists. They may be wannabe Baptists but they are more Protestant than Baptists and so are many on this forum.

 

you mean more Reformed / Presbyterian don't you? I'm apt to agree. Out of curiosity, where would you put someone like Spurgeon & Pink? Lastly George Whitefield.

 

How did Whitefield make your list, he was Anglican?

 

Yes he was ordained that but he left them for Evangelical missionary work. I would credit him as the greatest Evangelical in that regard. My ancestors also credited him with helping to start the Welsh Calvinist Methodist movement & then spreading the word.

Now, Where would you put Charlie & Arthur?

 

That is a good point....perhaps change the placement????

 

Oh, I have no qualms about any of the three, just curious about how Whitefield was lumped in with the others considering the thread topic.

 

No sweat...was a valid question. Whitfield was the guy that delivered the sermon "Method of Grace" that the HS used to convict me of my sins, so he is always on my mind. That guy musta been fantastic at evangelizing!

 

The problem is ecclesiology. If you hold to the universal invisible church theory (I don't) then it makes absolutely no difference what tag you wear because Piper and MacArthur will receive you into their churches as members regardless of what mode of baptism you have, or prefer, as long as you were a consenting believer. Indeed, if one holds to the Universal invisible church theory then any kind of claim that concrete churches are "one" with the "true" church demands the concrete conform to the membership requirements of the "true" church which requires no water baptism at all. Hence, the mode of baptism should make no difference to such churches or believers who embrace that theory with regard to membership in their assemblies. In fact, no membership requirements (no membership roll) whatsoever except profession of faith and just showing up is the only thing consistent with the "one" true universal invisible church and its membership.

Whitefield, as far as I can tell was accountable to no church body. Spurgeon was seemingly helpless to control the monstrosity of a church he pastored. He admitted that the American Baptists were more correct with closed communion but was helpless to implement it. When he died, they elected A.T. Pierson, an arminian, the very opposite to Spurgeon.

Pink published a treatise on the New Testament churches where he completely repudiated the universal invisible church theory and held to the 1644 and 1689 local church view and future glory church view. However, he started out as a Pre-millennialists and ended up somewhat of a covenant theologian as far as I can tell (His book on the covenants).

 

I was not responding to you. If I were responding to you I wouldn't have bothered to explain.

Well, yes! I am speaking of consistency with the doctrine not whether you or some church is consistent or not.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. My predetermined values are totally Biblical and I am up to the challenge if you are? My values are found in Matthew 28:19-20 and based upon a strict historical grammatical contextual interpretation. Really, it can be summed up in one phrase "make disciples." Do you know what a "disciple" is?

No I am not. Section 1 does not teach a universal invisible church. They are saying no more than they previously said in their association minutes concerning a FUTURE glory church consisting of all the elect in all ages. They further clarify it in section 2 and please note the change of language from the language of Westminister where the Baptist say all the elect on earth may be called "saints" instead of "church."

Neither exists in God's Word!

Evidence please? The only universal church these Baptists believed in was the collective churches of like faith and order. They rejected the universal invisible church theory. They rejected the Roman Catholic or Universal visible church theory. They did believe in a FUTURE glory church that consists of all the elect in all ages.

It is hard to respond civil to you without reacting to your obvious tone of ridicule. I am more than ready to discuss facts, objective evidences. As far as these kinds of churches they are only in your mind, but not in the Scriptures. You have to violate basic principles of exegesis to support such a thing. You don't know the difference between salvation and the church as your church is salvation as to be outside your kind of church is to be lost and to be inside it is to be saved - church salvation is what you are embracing. You don't know the difference between the baptism in the Spirit and regeneration. The baptism in the Spirit is time fixed = Pentecost but salvation precedes Pentecost just as does regeneration predate Pentecost.

 

no problem, apology accepted.

 

Thomas Bakewell, a Presbyterian entered into a public written debate with the Baptists who framed the 1644 Confession. He understood the article on the church to be a complete repudiation of the universal invisible church. The Baptist article reads:

The London Baptist Confession - 1646

XXXIII.
Jesus Christ hath here on earth a [manifestation of His] spiritual kingdom, which is His Church, whom He hath purchased and redeemed to Himself as a peculiar inheritance; which Church is a company of visible saints, called and separated from the world by the word and Spirit of God, to the visible profession of faith of the gospel, being baptized into that faith, and joined to the Lord, and each other, by mutual agreement in the practical enjoyment of the ordinances commanded by Christ their head and king. – The London Confession of Faith, 1646 – Emphasis mine

In response Bakewell said,

“you believe that this purchased redeemed Church of Christ is visible, and a company of Saints called and separated from the world by the Word and Spirit of God to the visible profession of faith, and the Gospel, and baptized in the faith, and joined to the Lord, and to each other by mutual agreement in practical enjoyment of the Ordinances commanded by Christ as their Head and King….but how dare you publish to the world that those whom Christ has purchased and redeemed, are visible, making profession of faith and the Gospel, and baptized and joined to the Lord, and to each other in practical enjoyment of the Ordinances….then you say you are ignorant of any invisible church or house of God.” - Thomas Bakewell, An Answer of Confutation of Divers Errors Broached and Maintained By the Seven Churches of Anabaptists contained in those Articles of their Confession of Faith Presented to Parliament, and other gross Opinions held by them against the clear light of the gospel, (Imprinter John Downham, 1646).

In the associational minutes of these same Baptists they often speak about the church but there is absolutely no mention of any kind of church consisting of all the elect in all denominations presently existing on earth and these minutes cover the whole period of the first Confession up to 1660.

Between 1660 and 1888 Baptists living in this period call it "The Great Tribulation period." Both Presbyterians and Baptists suffered during this period. In 1688 William and Mary (Presbyterians) took control of England. Baptists intentionally took the Westminster Confession as a pattern for their 1689 confession hoping the Presbyterians would not continue the state church persecuting of dissenters from the church state religion. Their hope was realized.

In order to understand correctly the 1689 Baptist Confession and its article on the church, one must take in account of every word that is not found in the Westminster as the Baptists very carefully chose their words when differing it.

For example in article 2 the Baptists refused to use the word "church" found in the Westminster to describe all the elect in all denominations living presently upon the earth at any given time. Instead, the Baptists said such "may be called saints" and then went on to say that such saints should be baptized members of congregations. This is an outright repudiation of the now popular universal invisible church theory which says all elect living on earth in all denominations may be called "the church." I understand that article II of the Westminster was speaking of the universal "visible" church when they described the "church" consisting of all elect but they equated with the "house" and "family" of God on earth or the totality of elect and the Baptists refused to call all the elect on earth "the church."

My point is that this repudiation of elect presently on earth proves that article one by the Baptists does not refer to any present universal invisible church theory, but it refers to the FUTURE glory church consisting of all the elect in all generations.

Articles 3-15 expand the Westminister articles III-V and especially the statement "Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will." Sections 5-15 define the nature of that church on earth which worships according to the will of God according to Baptists and it is a visible congregation.

All the following Anabaptist confessions mention only a local visible congregation:

1. The Moravian Confession 1527
2. The Swiss Brethren Confession 1527
3. The Hutterite Confession - 1540
4. The Moravian Anabaptist Confession - 1547
5. The Dutch Amsterdam Anabaptist Confession - 1611
6. The Dordrecht Dutch Anabaptist Confession 1632

The General Baptist Confession of 1651 makes no other mention than the local visible church.
Neither does the particular Baptist “Midland” Confession of Faith in 1655 or the “Somerset” Confession of 1657 mention any kind of universal invisible church. Neither does the New Hampshire Baptist Confession of 1732.

Up to about 1800 one cannot find any mention in the Philadelphia Associational minutes of any other church but the local visible and the "Mount Zion" collective use of churches of like faith and order. This same "mount Zion" is defined in detail by both the Philadelphia Association and the Particular English Baptist assoicational minutes up to 1660. The commonly used this term "Mount Zion" or "Sion" to refer only to the collective body of congregations who were like faith and order with each other.

 

Great site, KYB, and thanks for the post. I am a little amazed at this quote because for some time now, having been a member of the BB for some time, I have see more protestant and reformed theology in the "Baptist" membership than what I am used to in regards to Baptist Theology. It kind of echoes how I feel when discussing doctrine with some of the "baptists" here, lol. I think one of the things that strikes me most in this quote is this:


And it is not necessarily an arrogant and presumptuous thing in us if we strive to bring honored fellow-Christians to views which we honestly believe to be more scriptural, and therefore more wholesome. Apollos was an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, and Aquila and Priscilla were lowly people who doubtless admired him; yet they taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly, and no doubt greatly rejoiced that he was willing to learn. He who tries to win people from other denominations to his own distinctive views may be a sectarian bigot; but he may also be a humble and loving Christian


So I ask just one question, am I alone in thinking that some of the "Baptists" here are too Reformed and too Protestant? And that they could stand to be more...Baptist? lol

Am I misreading the quote?


God bless.