I am a Baptist

[JonC]

Yes. A lot of Reformed folks do not accept the idea of there being any such thing as "Reformed Baptists". I think it's pretty common nowadays for people to sort of pick out beliefs in a cafeteria style. A lot of folks in Reformed Baptist churches in the pews do not believe in limited atonement for example. Get on the internet and look at the "What We Believe" statements and most are very vague on that - leaving room for both on purpose. And it's not uncommon in Reformed Baptist churches to have cessationists and people waiting for the gifts to break out!

Baptists are a mix of beliefs.

I believe that the Baptist part comes primarily from Anabaptist Theology. The reason is what we call the "Baptist distinctives" were a part of Anabaptist general belief. But Baptists picked those out while leaving behind what they didn't hold (different parts of their theology by different Baptist sects).

Baptists also took from the Reformers (again, what each sect saw as true). Some took Penal Substitution Theory from Calvinists. Some Satisfaction Theory from Luther. Others kept the Anabaptist understanding of the Atonement. Some took unconditional election. Others took free-will theology.

What has been lost today is Christian history. For some reason many Baptists have also taken the idea of "church" from the Catholics and look for a string of "true churches" throughout history which necessitates denying historic theological development.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Refined Baptists

I like that term. I wish to now be known as a Refined Baptist. That's due to my distinctive and cultured manner. ;-)

 

[JonC]

I like that term. I wish to now be known as a Refined Baptist. That's due to my distinctive and cultured manner. ;-)

I like Peculiar Baptist.

(Actually, I like "Particular Baptist" for what most call "Reformed Baptist"....but I guess today that'd be negative given their relationship with Presbyterians).

 

[Piper]

Reformed Baptists have a high regard for Scripture, but they also have a high regard for Presbyterian doctrine in addition to Scripture. They are defined by the latter.

No I do not. I was raised Presbyterian, and Presbyter rule is where they get their name. I reject that in favor of a combines Elder/congregational rule of sorts.

 

[atpollard]

I like Peculiar Baptist.

(Actually, I like "Particular Baptist" for what most call "Reformed Baptist"....but I guess today that'd be negative given their relationship with Presbyterians).

I like "Particular Baptist" and "General Baptist" as the 'Monergist/Synergist flavors of Baptists, too.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I like Peculiar Baptist. ...

Yeah, so do I, but experience suggests it's rather redundant.

 

[Piper]

Yes. A lot of Reformed folks do not accept the idea of there being any such thing as "Reformed Baptists". I think it's pretty common nowadays for people to sort of pick out beliefs in a cafeteria style. A lot of folks in Reformed Baptist churches in the pews do not believe in limited atonement for example. Get on the internet and look at the "What We Believe" statements and most are very vague on that - leaving room for both on purpose. And it's not uncommon in Reformed Baptist churches to have cessationists and people waiting for the gifts to break out!

I have been in many non-reformed Baptist churches, and in several Reformed Baptist churches. The one I was a member of for the longest has absolutely consistent doctrine. You cannot believe in Reformed Doctrines and not believe in Unlimited Atonement. If you follow the logical, biblical implications, it contradicts the very essence of the absolute sovereignty of God.

I have tried to join discussions with Reformed people and they consistently dismiss me because I am not a Sabbatarian. That is a a gray issue and they treat it like biblical doctrine because the confessions include it.

Cessationism is a sticky subject. 1 Cor 13 is clear that the gifts will remain until Jesus returns but so many Presbyterians have this vague a-millenialism that contradicts clear biblical statements that Jesus will return in the same manner as which he left. I tire very easily of Reformed types who are arrogantly condescending and say I am not reformed at all.

 

[Mike Stidham]

Well I'm not going to get into this battle, it is what it is... And this is what I call my preacherism I've been collecting them over the years as far as the Substitution Theory goes... Here it is in its simplicity... Three in one and one in three and the one in the middle died for me!... You can use it if you want!... Brother Glen

Yep. That'll preach.

 

[37818]

. . . 1 Cor 13 is clear that the gifts will remain until Jesus returns . . . .

No it is not clear. It is a popular interpertation, but what is that interpertation's cross reference?

 

[DaveXR650]

You cannot believe in Reformed Doctrines and not believe in Unlimited Atonement. If you follow the logical, biblical implications, it contradicts the very essence of the absolute sovereignty of God.

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying there. Most people who like to label themselves "Calvinist" do not believe you can be less than a 5 point Calvinist. I just think that among what we call Baptists, most believe that God is sovereign, that no one can come without the Holy Spirit calling them but that the call is resistible. As far as the atonement, most Baptists believe that no one has been excluded from any possibility of salvation for the reason that Christ did not die for them. Most reformed Baptist churches that I know of don't make a big issue of this when it comes to membership and the church statements of "What We Believe" on their websites deliberately avoid the issue.

To me, I can see logically how someone who hears the gospel and rejects it throughout their lives - it could be said of them that Christ did not die for them. But logically I'm working backwards as a human and observing the actions of the person and then drawing my conclusion from that. But to say that there are people walking around who from all eternity, were destined to be lost and that the overriding and primary reason for that is that Christ did not include them in the atonement - to me goes too far.

 

[Piper]

I'm not sure I follow what you are saying there. Most people who like to label themselves "Calvinist" do not believe you can be less than a 5 point Calvinist. I just think that among what we call Baptists, most believe that God is sovereign, that no one can come without the Holy Spirit calling them but that the call is resistible. As far as the atonement, most Baptists believe that no one has been excluded from any possibility of salvation for the reason that Christ did not die for them. Most reformed Baptist churches that I know of don't make a big issue of this when it comes to membership and the church statements of "What We Believe" on their websites deliberately avoid the issue.

To me, I can see logically how someone who hears the gospel and rejects it throughout their lives - it could be said of them that Christ did not die for them. But logically I'm working backwards as a human and observing the actions of the person and then drawing my conclusion from that. But to say that there are people walking around who from all eternity, were destined to be lost and that the overriding and primary reason for that is that Christ did not include them in the atonement - to me goes too far.

You are welcome to your feelings, opinion. I start with the Bible and what it clearly says, even though it goes against what I think and feel and want it to say.

 

[Alan Gross]

I arrived at 4 of the 5 points of TULIP reading the Bible under Wesleyan instruction … WCF was not required. I only later learned that it had a name (Calvinism). TRUTH is TRUTH, irrespective of the source.

What is the 5th point you don't go with?, if you don't mind me prying.

I'll try not to diatribe-rant-cut & paste you.......

no that it would matter or you'd give a flip

just kidding

 

[Alan Gross]

What has been lost today is Christian history.

True Baptist-like churches are the History of true Christianity, in the New Testament Era.

You saw what GotQuestions put down for Baptist History;

What is the Baptist Church, and what do Baptists believe? | GotQuestions.org

They start with the Apostles and the first 100 years on up to the present, saying, essentially, that anything named Baptist originated in New Testament times*.

Of course, by 2023, the overwhelming vast majority of what are called 'Baptist' have departed from the faith, if they could ever be accused of having it.

"Tracking down the origins of the Baptist Church, in general, is an exercise in ancient church history. From the days of the apostles, there was one Church of Jesus Christ, with a single body of doctrine taught by the apostles. The various local churches preached repentance and confession of sins, along with baptism by immersion as an outward sign of the new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4). Under the authority of the apostles themselves as to doctrine, each church was independently governed by the leaders God placed in them. There was neither denominational hierarchy nor distinction of “us/them” within the various churches."


A Google search says, "Baptists are a group of Christians who share many basic biblical convictions with other Christians but also have some distinctive beliefs or doctrines. Some of these beliefs are the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Bible as the sole written authority, soul competency, and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone."

Add to those four, believers' baptism and you have enough for Catholics and Protestants to have killed 50 million of them, throughout all ages since the time of Christ.

*They are saying anything named Baptist is a Landmark Baptist, as to their claim to origins in the first century.

 

[JonC]

True Baptist-like churches are the History of true Christianity, in the New Testament Era.

You saw what GotQuestions put down for Baptist History;

What is the Baptist Church, and what do Baptists believe? | GotQuestions.org

They start with the Apostles and the first 100 years on up to the present, saying, essentially, that anything named Baptist originated in New Testament times*.

Of course, by 2023, the overwhelming vast majority of what are called 'Baptist' have departed from the faith, if they could ever be accused of having it.

"Tracking down the origins of the Baptist Church, in general, is an exercise in ancient church history. From the days of the apostles, there was one Church of Jesus Christ, with a single body of doctrine taught by the apostles. The various local churches preached repentance and confession of sins, along with baptism by immersion as an outward sign of the new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4). Under the authority of the apostles themselves as to doctrine, each church was independently governed by the leaders God placed in them. There was neither denominational hierarchy nor distinction of “us/them” within the various churches."


A Google search says, "Baptists are a group of Christians who share many basic biblical convictions with other Christians but also have some distinctive beliefs or doctrines. Some of these beliefs are the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Bible as the sole written authority, soul competency, and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone."

Add to those four, believers' baptism and you have enough for Catholics and Protestants to have killed 50 million of them, throughout all ages since the time of Christ.

*They are saying anything named Baptist is a Landmark Baptist, as to their claim to origins in the first century.

I agree that there have been Baptistic churches throughout history. The error comes in when people believe "Baptist like us".

Who determines the criteria? Why believers baptism?

For example, the if the criteria of a "true church" was an understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ then penal substitution would be a sign of a false church OR the true Baptistic like church is very young (no Baptistic church affirmed penal substitution until the first half of the 17th century).

There are many other examples we could use. My point is you are picking out what to look for in history.

 

[Piper]

Don't hijack my thread with the anti-Penal Substitution Theory.

 

[Alan Gross]

or doctrines. Some of these beliefs are the Lordship of Jesus Christ, the Bible as the sole written authority, soul competency, and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone."

Add to those four, believers' baptism

My point is you are picking out what to look for in history.

A Baptist-like church that Jesus built held to
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

Those five describe the local church only with Christ's Lordship as their Head, the priesthood of the believer, the Doctrines of Grace, the preservation of the Bible, etc.

They are counter beliefs to all the false ways of 'salvation' and the Christian life.

Why believers' baptism? To counter the heresies which place a false process of 'salvation' using some form of baptism.

A Baptist-like church down through the centuries would hold to;
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

And a Baptist-like church today would hold to;
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

We don't have a thing to say that we'd expect anyone to listen to,
apart from the Lordship of Christ.

So, no we would not be eliminating a congregation of scripturally baptized believers holding to those five beliefs held by the churches Jesus built in The New Testament, for any and every esoteric idiosyncrasy, like whether they had Bingo or a Bot Scout Troop, but if they didn't have
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion, for example, would not be what we're looking for.

Conversely, were one to claim they could prove there was a time period, during The New Testament Era when there wasn't a body of believers somewhere that held to Baptist-like Doctrine and
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion,
starting and including the church that Jesus built Himself, I believe they would have a tall order and one that is contrary to plain Bible teaching;

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18.

Unto him be glory in the church* by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. Ephesians 3:21.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. I Corinthians 11:26.
...

*context before, a local church: A Temple in the Lord

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


context after: local church:

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

 

[Salty]

A Baptist-like church that Jesus built held to
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,

How could a 1st century church have the Bible as its sole authority
when the Bible had not yet been ......

 

[Alan Gross]

A Baptist-like church that Jesus built held to
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,

How could a 1st century church have the Bible as its sole authority
when the Bible had not yet been ......

You tell me.

What do you want to call it?

What did they have?

God's Word.

 

[Piper]

A Baptist-like church that Jesus built held to
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,

How could a 1st century church have the Bible as its sole authority
when the Bible had not yet been ......

It could be that John Gill, er, ah, um, Alan Gross, means the Old Testament.

 

[JonC]

A Baptist-like church that Jesus built held to
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

Those five describe the local church only with Christ's Lordship as their Head, the priesthood of the believer, the Doctrines of Grace, the preservation of the Bible, etc.

They are counter beliefs to all the false ways of 'salvation' and the Christian life.

Why believers' baptism? To counter the heresies which place a false process of 'salvation' using some form of baptism.

A Baptist-like church down through the centuries would hold to;
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

And a Baptist-like church today would hold to;
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

We don't have a thing to say that we'd expect anyone to listen to,
apart from the Lordship of Christ.

So, no we would not be eliminating a congregation of scripturally baptized believers holding to those five beliefs held by the churches Jesus built in The New Testament, for any and every esoteric idiosyncrasy, like whether they had Bingo or a Bot Scout Troop, but if they didn't have
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion, for example, would not be what we're looking for.

Conversely, were one to claim they could prove there was a time period, during The New Testament Era when there wasn't a body of believers somewhere that held to Baptist-like Doctrine and
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion,
starting and including the church that Jesus built Himself, I believe they would have a tall order and one that is contrary to plain Bible teaching;

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18.

Unto him be glory in the church* by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. Ephesians 3:21.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. I Corinthians 11:26.
...

*context before, a local church: A Temple in the Lord

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.


context after: local church:

15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:

16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Again, the issue is most often of our Baptistic churches only look like past Baptistic churches superficially.

How can we focus on Baptistic distinctives and ignore that they had an entirely different understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ?