That link doesn't work for me. It's as broken as the the trail of blood 'connections' that some espouse.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Baptists before John Smythe
- Thread starter Bro. James
- Start date
And so tell me what is the stance on baptism?
But the point is, at the heart of things Brother, have Baptists ever persecuted others? And do we want to associate with those who have?
It's no secret. You ought to know.
But what's with your nonsensical belief that Presbyterians participate in something resembling a Roman Catholic Mass?! Where in the world did you get THAT notion?
I'll have look into that --perhaps the Quakers.
You have a strange outlook. First of all, the current year is 2017. Baptists haven't been persecuted by Presbyterians more than 200 years.
Will you hold it against present day Presbyterians for what a number of their ancestors did? Of course a number of present day Presbyterians did not have any Presbyterian ancestors.
Do you still harbor ill-will against Germans and Japanese for what their great grandfathers did? It's the same principle.
Because they are simply not Baptists. I called it a "Baptist distinctive". As such, it is a distinctive which assumes another common ground. This is why we are not Anabaptists. Baptists have also inherited from the Reformers. By today's standard, however, we would all probably be called "Baptists".... of course, by today's standard we had a Baptist preacher baptize a baby so I think it fair to say historical lines have blurred a bit.
If the distinctive itself made a church a Baptist church, then the Church of Christ is a Baptist church (they do believe one believes before they are baptized, although they depart in holding baptism as a sacrament through which God's forgiveness is obtained). Likewise, Baptists do not hold separation as Anabaptists hold the doctrine. Baptist Christian liberty includes doctrines that Anabaptist theology excludes. We are of both Reformed and Anabaptist trajectory as we are indebted to both.
If you still don't see the difference, then consider Arminianism and Open Theism. An open theist holds the Arminian distinctive (and owes much to that theology). But Arminianism is not Open Theism. Arminianism is indebted greatly to Calvinism and is of Calvinistic trajectory. But Arminianism is not Calvinism. Calvinism is not Arminianism. There are points there these theologies depart. The same is true with Baptist churches and Anabaptist churches. There is a point there the theologies depart.
The "link" is a Faith and Practice which goes back to: the shores of Galilee, The Book of Acts and Jude 3, through the gates of Hades, not re-re-reformed pedobaptists. It is not about a name.
The reference to Calvin's persecutions is to show that his heart of hearts was like Rome and the other daughters of Rome--i.e. given over to strong delusion, believing a lie.
Forgive them for sure, but do not let them in the fold without true fruits of repentance. Anabaptists seriously screened candidates and baptized them scripturally on proof of repentance. Of course this would incense a pedobaptist cleric of any flavor.
The daughters are going back to Rome. Now what? We know not what persecution is about. Read: Sam Morland, "History of The Evangelical Churches of the Valley of Piedmont."
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
The reference to Calvin's persecutions is to show that his heart of hearts was like Rome and the other daughters of Rome--i.e. given over to strong delusion, believing a lie.
Forgive them for sure, but do not let them in the fold without true fruits of repentance. Anabaptists seriously screened candidates and baptized them scripturally on proof of repentance. Of course this would incense a pedobaptist cleric of any flavor.
The daughters are going back to Rome. Now what? We know not what persecution is about. Read: Sam Morland, "History of The Evangelical Churches of the Valley of Piedmont."
Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Bro. James
Last edited:
Why not? "Baptist," contrary to popular opinion, is not a denominational name, it is a doctrinal distinction. A doctrinal identity. If a church falls within the baptist distinctives it is baptist regardless of the name on the door.
Nonsense. What baptist distinctive teaches baptismal regeneration and that only one group's baptism is acceptable?
Exactly. And what Baptist distinctive teaches a separation along the Mennonite doctrine of separation, or a liberty of conscious in doctrine that excludes pacifism and a nonviolent atonement?
Look, never mind. You are dancing all around the issue to avoid the obvious.
Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of the Believer
Two Ordinances
Individual Soul Liberty
Saved, Baptized Church Membership
Two Offices
Separation of Church and State
Not one word in those distinctives regarding your pet peeves.
I don't know what you are talking about with my "pet peeves". I am saying that the Mennonite doctrine of separation is not the same. I am saying they hold a distinctive of nonviolence that makes them different. If you believe Mennonites and Baptists are one and the same that's no skin off my back but I'm a Baptist, not a Mennonite, so I respectfully disagree.
The Stone-Campbell movement took the Baptist distinctive of believers baptism to a point it no longer was baptist by introducing baptismal regeneration. A CoC church is not a Baptist church. Open Theism took the Arminian understanding of divine knowledge to a point it was no longer Arminianism.
The Baptist distinctive of separation as expressed in the life of its congregations is not the same as the Anabaptist distinctive of separation. The doctrines to which Christian liberty is applied are not the same.
Baptists are indebted to both the Reformers and the Anabapitsts. We share common ground with both, but are not exactly like either.
The Baptist distinctive of separation as expressed in the life of its congregations is not the same as the Anabaptist distinctive of separation. The doctrines to which Christian liberty is applied are not the same.
Baptists are indebted to both the Reformers and the Anabapitsts. We share common ground with both, but are not exactly like either.
Please show me the baptist distinctive that forbids any of the things Mennonites believe that you object to.
Insofar as a distinctive goes, there isn't one that forbids interpretating the distinctive of separation to prohibit Christians serving in public offices or encouraging a withdrawal from society.
You are trying to argue against me by using only part of my definition of a Baptist church (the part we inherit from Anabaptists). I defined a Baptist church as being a Protestant church which holds a baptist distinctive. I do not believe Mennonites would fall into that category (I do see them as at least holding a baptist distinctive but I don't see their doctrine as indebted to the work of the Reformers). A "distinctive" implies something set apart from otherwise shared doctrine. Here the Baptist distinctive sets Baptist churches apart from other Protestant churches.
Last edited:
Not at all. A "distinctive" points to differences, to what makes something distinct among otherwise common ground. The Baptist distinctive separates or defines Baptists from other Protestant churches.
So, somebody, such as James, who does not believe Baptists are Protestants is not really a Baptist because he fails your litmus test of being Protestant?
Would it also be legitimate for me to change the Baptist Distinctives to exclude the use of drums on the platform? Any church with drums is not a "real" Baptist Church?
And what about the church that uses drums? Can that church change the Baptist Distinctives to say that a church without drums is not a "real" Baptist Church?
If everybody gets to change the Baptist Distinctives to agree with their pet obsession there would be no Baptists at all. Any where. Ever.
Would it also be legitimate for me to change the Baptist Distinctives to exclude the use of drums on the platform? Any church with drums is not a "real" Baptist Church?
And what about the church that uses drums? Can that church change the Baptist Distinctives to say that a church without drums is not a "real" Baptist Church?
If everybody gets to change the Baptist Distinctives to agree with their pet obsession there would be no Baptists at all. Any where. Ever.
I never said one has to believe Baptists are also indebted to the Reformers in order to be Baptist (although I do believe their doctrine will reflect such an indebtedness).
We have several Pentecostal churches that meet the "Baptist distinctives" (two are Oneness so they do reject the doctrine of the Trinity, but that wasn't on your list anyway). I don't think Pentecostal churches are Baptist churches. I don't think Churches of Christ are Baptist churches either.
And I never said anything about Baptists being indebted to the Reformers. I said James does not believe he, as a Baptist, is a Protestant. If your "Baptist Distinctive" includes Baptists being Protestant (as you stated above) then, according to you, James is not a Baptist.
Really? The Bible as Sole Authority? They don't have continuing revelation in the form of tongues, prophets, word of wisdom, or word of knowledge? If not, what makes them Pentecostal?
Already dealt with. Baptismal Regeneration precludes a saved membership.