I am a Baptist

[atpollard]

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

No problem. From Life Experiences, Wesleyan Holiness sermons and reading the Bible foundation I arrived at these 4 TRUTHS:

• People are no darn good. (= T)
• God chooses us ‘just because’; we sure don’t deserve it. (= U)
• God does not ask, God just does. (= I)
• God finishes what God starts. (= P)

I had never given any thought to who else Jesus had died for. The question never entered my mind. I was just GRATEFUL that He had died for me.

It was years later that I learned that my Biblical conclusions already had a name (‘Calvinism’) and I started to acquire the “theological” vocabulary to discuss the ideas with others. [Calvinism, Arminianism, Monergism, Synergism, etc.]. However, my foundation has always been BIBLICAL and EMPIRICAL, because any “Truth” that doesn’t work in those two areas is useless to me.

 

[atpollard]

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

I think I would like a clarification on that. The statement that the Church in our day has “a completely different understanding of the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ” from that held by the Church throughout history is a very serious statement to make.

What WAS this good news?
What IS the good news?

 

[JonC]

I think I would like a clarification on that. The statement that the Church in our day has “a completely different understanding of the gospel (good news) of Jesus Christ” from that held by the Church throughout history is a very serious statement to make.

What WAS this good news?
What IS the good news?

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.

 

[Alan Gross]

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

"We" don't, as in those who comprehensively research such things.

If, "they had an entirely different understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ", they wouldn't meet these two criteria;

salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

Narrowing these 'distinctives' or marks of a properly organized New Testament church congregation allows for comparing and searching for Apples vs Applies.

In fact, these two are enough to look for, to determine that it is a Baptist-like congregation you're looking at.

Besides the fact that they don't state;
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
very often because they were implied and taken for granted when folks held to, or hold to;

salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.
...

That being said, looking for;
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion,
would eliminate what percentage of those 'called Baptist', today?

Since believers' baptism by immersion would include
the belief in local church only, under The Lordship of Christ,
not accepting alien immersion,
or any other form of baptism, for any reason, all Bible-based,
that is going to eliminate
an enormous amount of those currently 'called Baptist',
off jump street.

*75%, 80-90%, 98%, 99%, 99.9%?

That's O.K., they aren't what I'm talking about whatsoever
and not what we are looking for.

 

[Alan Gross]

salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

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.

Either we have 1a.) Spiritually wrought repentance of a completely condemned sinner to now be Enabled to agree with God against themselves

and 1b.) a God-given New Birth for them to believe and have faith in the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the life of the flesh that is in His Eternally Efficacious blood,

or there is no salvation.

"The good news is that the foretold Kingdom has come", or any of the modern forms of 'easy believism', may only leave lost souls lost and innoculate them in a way, by being deceived into thinking they have a home in Heaven, requiring God to overthrow what they've been preached and bring them His true message of the Gospel.

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

Some Baptists in name only, for example, would have died for their belief in repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ some few years back, but will skip the repentance part, today (and, therefore, the issue of the lost soul's sin condemning them and the necessity of their sins being imputed to the Perfect Lamb of God, causing His horrific, torturous death, for God to then impute Jesus' Perfect life and Righteousness to them) and instead will offer a 'gift' to a lost soul for them to superficially consent to, for 'an escape from Hell'.

The problem is, it doesn't produce an Eternally saved soul, only a temporary 'church-goer', wondering why they can't live the Christian life...

 

[JonC]

"We" don't, as in those who comprehensively research such things.

If, "they had an entirely different understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ", they wouldn't meet these two criteria;

salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.

Narrowing these 'distinctives' or marks of a properly organized New Testament church congregation allows for comparing and searching for Apples vs Applies.

In fact, these two are enough to look for, to determine that it is a Baptist-like congregation you're looking at.

Besides the fact that they don't state;
the Lordship of Jesus Christ,
the Bible as the sole written authority,
soul competency,
very often because they were implied and taken for granted when folks held to, or hold to;

salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion.
...

That being said, looking for;
salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone,
believers' baptism by immersion,
would eliminate what percentage of those 'called Baptist', today?

Since believers' baptism by immersion would include
the belief in local church only, under The Lordship of Christ,
not accepting alien immersion,
or any other form of baptism, for any reason, all Bible-based,
that is going to eliminate
an enormous amount of those currently 'called Baptist',
off jump street.

*75%, 80-90%, 98%, 99%, 99.9%?

That's O.K., they aren't what I'm talking about whatsoever
and not what we are looking for.

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.

 

[JonC]

Either we have 1a.) Spiritually wrought repentance of a completely condemned sinner to now be Enabled to agree with God against themselves

and 1b.) a God-given New Birth for them to believe and have faith in the sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, in the life of the flesh that is in His Eternally Efficacious blood,

or there is no salvation.

"The good news is that the foretold Kingdom has come", or any of the modern forms of 'easy believism', may only leave lost souls lost and innoculate them in a way, by being deceived into thinking they have a home in Heaven, requiring God to overthrow what they've been preached and bring them His true message of the Gospel.



Some Baptists in name only, for example, would have died for their belief in repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ some few years back, but will skip the repentance part, today (and, therefore, the issue of the lost soul's sin condemning them and the necessity of their sins being imputed to the Perfect Lamb of God, causing His horrific, torturous death, for God to then impute Jesus' Perfect life and Righteousness to them) and instead will offer a 'gift' to a lost soul for them to superficially consent to, for 'an escape from Hell'.

The problem is, it doesn't produce an Eternally saved soul, only a temporary 'church-goer', wondering why they can't live the Christian life...

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"?

 

[Alan Gross]

The good news is that the foretold Kingdom has come.

We is the good news, again?

I'm not sure you know what the Gospel is.

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.

What Anabaptist out of millions of them?

Primitive Baptists are anti-missionary and don't preach the Gospel to the lost, as the instrumentality God uses to save a soul.

They split from Missionary Baptists in the 1800s.

They skip preaching the Gospel in practice and in their Statements of Faith.

Fortunately, I am not the One Who determines whether they are saved, by and large or not.


"We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way (by means which He has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned, and sanctified; and that it is impossible that they can utterly refuse the calling of Grace, but shall be made willing, by Divine Grace, to receive the offers of mercy. Jude 1:1, Acts 2:39, Rom. 8:30, Heb. 13:12, 1 Cor. 1:2, Heb. 10:10; 10:14, I Pet. 1:2, II Thes. 2:13, I Cor. 6:11, Rom. 3:24, Tit. 3:7, Rom. 5:9.

"We believe that eternal justification in the sight of God is only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Rom. 3:24, Rom. 5:9; 8:30, Tit. 3:7.

"We believe, in like manner, that God’s elect shall be called and justified, born again, and changed by the effectual working of God’s Holy Spirit. Jude 1:1 Acts 2:39, Rom. 8:30, Rom. 3:24, Titus 3:7, Rom. 5:9.

"We believe that such as are called by His grace and justified shall finally persevere in Holiness, and never fall finally away. John 10:29, Heb. 2:13, Isa. 49:16, Rom. 8:28-30, I Thes. 4:17."

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

I'm glad you think you know every belief of anyone at any given time throughout all of history, but the Bible is the rule for faith and practice and it has been around, for people to believe just what it says, a long time.

What do I believe about what the Gospel is, as a Landmark Baptist?

You can save me from checking.

 

[JonC]

We is the good news, again?

I'm not sure you know what the Gospel is.



What Anabaptist out of millions of them?

Primitive Baptists are anti-missionary and don't preach the Gospel to the lost, as the instrumentality God uses to save a soul.

They split from Missionary Baptists in the 1800s.

They skip preaching the Gospel in practice and in their Statements of Faith.

Fortunately, I am not the One Who determines whether they are saved, by and large or not.


"We believe that in God’s own appointed time and way (by means which He has ordained) the elect shall be called, justified, pardoned, and sanctified; and that it is impossible that they can utterly refuse the calling of Grace, but shall be made willing, by Divine Grace, to receive the offers of mercy. Jude 1:1, Acts 2:39, Rom. 8:30, Heb. 13:12, 1 Cor. 1:2, Heb. 10:10; 10:14, I Pet. 1:2, II Thes. 2:13, I Cor. 6:11, Rom. 3:24, Tit. 3:7, Rom. 5:9.

"We believe that eternal justification in the sight of God is only by the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Rom. 3:24, Rom. 5:9; 8:30, Tit. 3:7.

"We believe, in like manner, that God’s elect shall be called and justified, born again, and changed by the effectual working of God’s Holy Spirit. Jude 1:1 Acts 2:39, Rom. 8:30, Rom. 3:24, Titus 3:7, Rom. 5:9.

"We believe that such as are called by His grace and justified shall finally persevere in Holiness, and never fall finally away. John 10:29, Heb. 2:13, Isa. 49:16, Rom. 8:28-30, I Thes. 4:17."



I'm glad you think you know every belief of anyone at any given time throughout all of history, but the Bible is the rule for faith and practice and it has been around, for people to believe just what it says, a long time.

What do I believe about what the Gospel is, as a Landmark Baptist?

You can save me from checking.

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]

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.....

on another post....

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

And in another....

you hold another gospel than they did and you do not hold other things they found necessary in a "true church").

I do believe that this is against forum rules, saying that people are heretics. Saying that Baptists who believe in Penal Substitution believe another gospel is saying that the majority of Reformed Baptists today are HERETICS.

That is a bold claim.

I think the moderators need to stop you from saying those things.

And I would respectfully ask you to stay off this thread. I have asked you to stop bringing in your view of penal substitution, and you continue

 

[Salty]

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

 

[Piper]

I do believe that this is against forum rules, saying that people are heretics. Saying that Baptists who believe in Penal Substitution believe another gospel is saying that the majority of Reformed Baptists today are HERETICS.

That is a bold claim.

I think the moderators need to stop you from saying those things.

And I would respectfully ask you to stay off this thread. I have asked you to stop bringing in your view of "anti-penal substitution", and you continue

Correction.

 

[JonC]

I do believe that this is against forum rules, saying that people are heretics. Saying that Baptists who believe in Penal Substitution believe another gospel is saying that the majority of Reformed Baptists today are HERETICS.

That is a bold claim.

I think the moderators need to stop you from saying those things.

And I would respectfully ask you to stay off this thread. I have asked you to stop bringing in your view of penal substitution, and you continue

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.

 

[Piper]

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.

No, the view I am defending is accepted in evangelical conservative Baptist circles, seminaries and churches. You need to stop calling my view a false gospel or another gospel. That is being an accuser of the brethren.

 

[JonC]

No, the view I am defending is accepted in evangelical conservative Baptist circles, seminaries and churches. You need to stop calling my view a false gospel or another gospel. That is being an accuser of the brethren.

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.

 

[Salty]

It appears there are two different interpolations on this doctrine

Lets move on

 

[JonC]

It appears there are two different interpolations on this doctrine

Lets move on

At least....but two here.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[Salty]

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.

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.???

Baptist, in general, has inherited theology from Anabaptist groups

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

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

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.

We have Baptist churches that sprinkle infants as a dedication.

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

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

Thus the term - Heinz 57 Variety of Baptists

 

[JonC]

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).