Featured I am a Baptist

It is a serious statement to make, but we know there have been several competing understandings of the gospel.

The good news is that the foretold Kingdom has come. All Christians agree on that part. But when you break it down many understand the gospel in very different terms.

Baptistic churches before the 17th century typically viewed this as Christ unifying with man and freeing mankind from bondage, defeating the powers of evil that gathered at the Cross.

I guess it may have been natural as they were "outsiders" and persecuted throughout history.

Baptist Churches today typically hold a more Catholic view (I suppose from the Reformation) than Baptistic churches that existed prior to the Reformation.

 

Nonsense.

Anabaptists believed in believers baptism by immersion. They also had an entirely different understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ than Baptists like Landmark Baptists and Primitive Baptists hold.

In fact, no Baptistic church before the 17th century had the understanding of the gospel that Landmark Baptist churches have.

 

Do you know what Jesus said the gospel is? He said it is the arrival of much anticipated kingdom of God (Mark 1).

Why do you believe Jesus taught "easy believism"?

 

The gospel is that the kingdom of God has come. The reason that Jesus proclaimed it as the gospel (the "good news") is that Israel had looked to the Messiah who would free them from bondage (they thought in a worldly way, but Jesus explained that His kingdom is not of this world).

I am not going to argue with you against Scripture. The Bible says it, and that is good enough for me.

You are making the mistake of thinking things about the gospel, or even how men enter into this "kingdom", is the gospel itself.

By Anabaptist I mean all Anabaptist theology prior to the mid 20th Century.

But you could apply that to any Baptistic group. There existed no Baptistic church prior to the 17th Century that holds your understanding of the gospel itself.

That is why I asked why you draw the line at baptism.

I was not even arguing that pre-Reformation belief was correct. I believe pre-Reformation Baptistic faith was correct in how they viewed the gospel. But there were some understandings I believe is wrong.

It does not matter whether we believe those in the past got it right or wrong. My point is you point to a kinship with past churches that would view you as a heretic (not because of believers baptism by immersion but because you hold another gospel than they did and you do not hold other things they found necessary in a "true church").

 

Piper - if you wish, you can always put someone on ignore

 

It is one thing to say "this is the gospel" and cite what Jesus says is the gospel.

It is another to say "no, what Jesus called the gospel is not the gospel" and then offer ones understanding of the gospel as the gospel itself.

I'll make you a deal.

You stop advocating your belief and I will stop saying you are wrong.

Is that fair? Of course not. We each express our own beliefs here.

If you cannot tolerate other members stating views that oppose your own then perhaps a debate board may not be appropriate for you.

 

It is accepted in most evangelical Baptist circles. I never said it wasn't. But it is a reformed Roman Catholic view (and relatively new to the Christian faith).

Your understanding of the gospel is false in the sense it is unbiblical and opposes what the Bible teaches of Christ's work. If you insist that your understanding IS the gospel then it is "another gospel".

You condemn traditional Christian faith in favor of a reformed version of Aquinas' satisfaction substitution (you hold a reformed Catholic faith on this topic).

And then you complain that I argue against your belief.

I told you - if you stop advocating your belief then I will stop posting my belief you are wrong. OR you could simply debate your belief and be adult enough to allow others to disagree with you.

 

It appears there are two different interpolations on this doctrine

Lets move on

 

At least....but two here.

 

The thing is, what it means to be "Baptist" is that different groups have different ideas.

At least it is believers baptism and autonomy of the local church.

But the term "Baptist" changes with time. For example, today some Baptist churches are elder led.

Baptist is a blend of "theologies" to one degree or another.

Baptist, in general, has inherited theology from Anabaptist groups (the "Radical Reformation") and from Reformed groups (particularly Lutherans and Presbyterians, with a little Methodist sprinkled in for good measure).

How much of each ingredient differs among Baptist sects and has changed over time as theology across Reformed and Baptist lines became more acceptable.

Anabaptists (like Mennonites and Amish sects) are "Baptists". But they reject penal substitution and hold other doctrines essential to their identity.

Many Reformed Baptists have moved closer to Presbyterian theology in their view of redemptive history.

We have Baptists that are closer to Wesleyan theology.

We have Baptist churches that are "daughter churches" rather than independent congregations.

We have Baptist churches that sprinkle infants as a dedication.



So "Baptist" has become a term with little meaning - basically believers baptism.

 

I understand there are even different views on that
Would some want at least 2 elders so it is not single pastor rule
Should there be several - 7 or more
Should they have different roles - Teaching elder, counseling, music admin, ect.???

Groups such as the Free Will believe that salvation can be lost - as well as feet washing is an ordinance. [/QUOTE]

I had heard that Highland Park Baptist had many many missions - with no intent to allow them to become autonomous - as they were perfect for pastors in training from Tennessee Temple Baptist College.

I would never do such a thing - because in reality a "baby dedication" is actually
the dedication of the parents and the Godparents.

Thus the term - Heinz 57 Variety of Baptists

 

Same with Anabaptists. Anabaptist theology is Baptist, but includes a separation of Church (as a congregation) and State that most Baptists don't hold. Anabaptist also includes a doctrine of nonresistance

But since the term "Anabaptist" was a derogatory term used by Catholic and the Reformed to refer to believers baptism, the term "Anabaptist Theology" has been misused to include those of the Münster rebellion and the
Batenburgers.

The difference is Anabaptist Theology is a bit more defined (more necessary elements).


I don't think that "Baptist" needs to be a more narrow term. We typically add to it (Reformed Baptist, Free-Will Baptist, SBC, Fundamental Baptist, Independent Baptist, Missionary Baptist, Primitive Baptist).