Featured Are there any Bible teachers you fully agree with.

@Deacon got it correct....the only right answer is "Jesus"

 

Missionary Baptists and Primitive Baptists are the two groups that formed in the early 19th Century over a disagreement concerning Calvinism. One group sought to join efforts and spread the gospel. The other was Calvinistic (hyper-Calvinistic....perhaps reactionary). Daniel Parker is a good example of the disagreement.

I don't think anybody is linking John Calvin to Primitive Baptist Churches. But Primitive Baptists inherited Presbyterian theology.

You have to remember the timeline.

When Primitive Baptist churches were created the largest denomination in America was the Methodists. In the area Presbyterian Churches were also strong.

Some Baptist churches gravitated towards Wesleyan theology. Others moved towards a more Calvinistic position.

This caused a divide. One group that formed was Missionary Baptists. The other was Primitive Baptists.

I understand that Primitive Baptists do not like the term "Calvinism". But they inherited certain aspects of their theology from the Presbyterian Church.

The Southern Baptists split from the "northern Baptists" about this same time (but over slavery).

 

Sure they do. John Myles was even associated with the Particular Baptists in London.

What is true is they reject the connection, not that they were uninfluenced.

 

When it comes to Baptists there is going to be some group that has taken something from the major groups

 

I know Particular Baptists are not Primitive Baptists. That isn't what I was saying.

Primitive Baptists share Reformed Theology, just not exactly the same. In some ways Primitive Baptists are more "Calvinistic" than Particular Baptists (especially regarding evangelism).

My point is that Primitive Baptists have inherited certain aspects of Reformed theology. The link you point out mention the Welch Baptists. That is the context I mentioned Particular Baptists (and John Miles).

Primitive Baptists formed as a reaction against what they saw as Methodist influences within their churches. Missionary Baptists formed as a reaction against what they saw as Presbyterian influences within their churches.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with either of these denominations. God has used both in ways that they may not have been useful had they not formed (had they remained together bickering about doctrine).

 

That is exactly what everybody thinks.

My rule of thumb is those beliefs you cannot actually highlight with a pen in your Bible...well, those are not directly from the Apostles.

They may be understandings, ideas, opinions, and doctrines based on the teachings of the Apostles, but they are not those actual teachings.

I'll give you an example :

Christ died for our sins by taking that death instead of us. That is a very common belief, but it is not in the Bible (Christ dying for our sins is in the Bible, but the rest is not).

So how can you defend that belief? Systematic Theology. You defend the reasons (the philosophes you have developed from the OT, the idea of justice you hold, ... and so on) for holding that view

But most Christians do not hold that view. And they have to defend their theology that is not actually in the Bible much the same way.

You end up not arguing Scripture because nobody is actually talking about the Bible, and instead argue which philosophy is right.

Each opposing side claims to know what the Bible teaches, but too often they do not stuck with what the Bible actually says ("what is written").

That is why I believe that foundational doctrines should actually be in the text of Scripture.


(Not saying you....just a general statement).