• 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!

I thought Baptists followed scripture

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Will you name three specific doctrines that Baptists preach that is not in the Bible?
I think that may depend on the preacher. We teach so many things (Baptist being a distinction).
So @Mur will not be able to provide an example of even one doctrine that Baptists preach which is not in the Bible without finding another Baotist who does not teach it.

For example, were he to point out that Baptists preach the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement, which is not in the text of Scripture, I would point out that William B. Johnson strongly opposed the theory.

William B. Johnson founded the South Carolina Baptist Convention and was its president for 27 years. He was a founder (the principle designer) of the Southern Baptist Convention and served as its first president. The first SBC statement of faith was in 1925, a time when the theory was gaining ground in US Baptist churches, but it was purposely written to avoid a stand either way (so as to include the theorists along with the traditionalists).

So for every doctrine he could produce that is not in the text if Scripture Baptists coukd be found who preach against it.

Baptist is not a denomination.
 
1. Jesus celebrated Passover early (so much for the exact day being critical).
2. The APOSTLE PAUL made it 100% clear that “it is not about days” (So you reject the Biblical teaching).
3. If it IS all about the resurrection … that was on a Sunday (first day of the week) … not a variable calendar.
4. Easter (the word) has NOTHING to do with Ishtar the goddess. It is the German word for “East” and was the name of the mass celebrated at dawn to commemorate the resurrection (the son rises in the east).
Jesus Kept the Passover on Passover, Biblical Days start at Evening and It was on Passover Evening, after telling His Disciples to Keep the Passover with the Bread and Fruit of the Vine, Then He was arrested He was Crucified on Passover Day, which is always fourteen days from the new moon Abib Exodus 12:2

1Corinthians 5:7
Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:

1Corinthians 5:8
Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

Your traditions have made void the Word of God, and as Peter warned the unlearned twist Paul as they do all he scriptures. Paul was in a hurry that he might keep Pentecost in Jerusalem in Acts if you look it up.

I choose to live by the word of God, not a twisted version thereof

Jesus was Crucified on the Fourth Day _ His Body went into the tomb on the Fifth Day at evening Fifth Day, Sixth day Evening-Sixth Day Seventh Day Evening - Seventh Day.

Three Days and Three Nights

He Rose on the First Day while it was still Dark, could have been anytime after the sunset ending the seventh day.

John 20

1​

The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

The first day begins when the sun goes down, early referencing the evening portion which started after the sunset, ending the seventh day.

Since Passover can fall on any day of the week, and Firstfruits, the waving of the sheaves is always on the 1st day of the week following Passover, The time between Passover and Firstfruits varies from 1 to 6 days, Firstfruits Resurrection Day is the first day of the counting of the omer 50 days until Pentecost.

Wrong day for the resurrection wrong day for pentecost, the faith once delivered unto the saints is not found in the denominations of man. How Messiah is joined to His people is a Mystery not found in buildings.
 
Last edited:

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
4. Easter (the word) has NOTHING to do with Ishtar the goddess. It is the German word for “East” and was the name of the mass celebrated at dawn to commemorate the resurrection (the son rises in the east).
did an on-line translator - when I typed in "East" for English - the German translator was "OST" (West = Westen)
Then I went to Blue Bible - typed in "Easter" and this came up:
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Protestants including Baptist follow the pope's decrees

Christmas became a formal part of the faith in the 4th century CE when the date of December 25 was chosen by Pope Julius to celebrate the birth of Jesus

The First Council of Nicaea (325) established easter observance for all Christians on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox.
1) Many believe that Christ was born about Oct. Scripture does not give an exact date. Since most of the Christian world celebrates on 25 Dec (I know Eastern does 6 Jan) - we celebrate in Dec. Not a big deal!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Some Baptists follow Scripture but most today hold a lot of reformed RCC doctrine and a lot of theories mixed in with Scripture.

Most Baptists I have encountered here object when I use God's Word and do not accept what men have taught them the Bible "really" teaches.

As far as universal salvation, unfortunately this is not present in "what is written". On a previous thread you assumed that all things being united in Christ means that all will be saved. But this was at the cost of passages stating that all will not be saved. That should have led you to question exactly how will all things be unified in Christ, but it didn't.

My point is we all have understandings that we should not lean on. Have opinions. But trust in every word that comes from God.

Trust that Christ will reconcile all things unto Himself while als trusting that the wicked will perish, that they will be cast into the Lake of Fire prepared for Satan and his demons which is the Second Death.

Then work on conforming your understanding to God's words (your understanding to what you lean upon).
No, we hold to what the scriptures teach regarding things such as Atonement, and we use other sources written by reformed and Baptists who also exegeted that belief straight from the scriptures themselves
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Another Baptist pastor that gets it wrong about Catholics. Catholics DO claim their doctrines align with scripture and popes cannot change the dogma of the Church.
No, you affirms that the scriptures align up with your church tradition and dogmas, as Rome is is same boat as Sda with their Ellen White, as you force the bible to agree with your Dogmas and church tradition, so its how Rome interprets it, not hat it actually stated
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
No, we hold to what the scriptures teach regarding things such as Atonement, and we use other sources written by reformed and Baptists who also exegeted that belief straight from the scriptures themselves
Sorry....fixed the other post.

Anyway....you hold to what the men you have chosen tell you the Bible really teaches.

I believe that the Bible teaches the actual words of God. God is the One revealing Himself and His works in the Bible.

You do not believe God's actual words.

If you want to prove me wrong post God's words stating Jesus experienced God's.

You can't because your faith is not actually in God's words. It is an understanding some have about what is realky taught.


I urge you to pause and read the actual words if God before continuing down the path you have chosen.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Baptist is not a denomination.

Baptist’s are 65 denominations if the literature is right.

But in essence, every independent church that decides its doctrines and interpretations of scripture are denominations of themselves. So countless numbers.

What Baptists desperately need is a Pope to bring unity them all, and make definitive calls on interpretation and doctrine.

I see conventions and associations trying, but these aren’t like the ecumenical councils of the Early Church that definitively settled interpretations and doctrines for all time, long ago.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist’s are 65 denominations if the literature is right.

But in essence, every independent church that decides its doctrines and interpretations of scripture are denominations of themselves. So countless numbers.

What Baptists desperately need is a Pope to bring unity them all, and make definitive calls on interpretation and doctrine.

I see conventions and associations trying, but these aren’t like the ecumenical councils of the Early Church that definitively settled interpretations and doctrines for all time, long ago.

You are correct. Although because of the polity of Baptist church, each one could disassociate with their particular convention (denomination) for any reason. If tou look at the Baptist Only section of the board it list the various Baptist 'denominations'. Their words, not mine.

Papacy for Baptist will be horrifying to them but you are right. Myriad of doctrines espoused by the many Baptist churches Only bring division and church splits. Everyone on this board has experienced them. It confuses new believers and drives others away. Many don't find another church where the division and fighting isn't (presently) taking place, they just discontinue attending altogether. I have a neighbor who left a Baptist church in the middle of a church fight and after a year now attending the Catholic Church with us. First thing they mentioned was that their was no discord in the congregation.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Baptist’s are 65 denominations if the literature is right.

But in essence, every independent church that decides its doctrines and interpretations of scripture are denominations of themselves. So countless numbers.

What Baptists desperately need is a Pope to bring unity them all, and make definitive calls on interpretation and doctrine.

I see conventions and associations trying, but these aren’t like the ecumenical councils of the Early Church that definitively settled interpretations and doctrines for all time, long ago.
Interesting. I would have thought it were more.

But yes, "Baptist" does not refer to a single denomination.

I disagree about needing a pope for unity. I do not believe we are to be united in doctrine (the churches in Acts were not united in doctrine). But I do believe we should be united in Christ (not only Baptist, but all Christians).

The associations and conferences are not, I agree, ecumenical councils. These do not have authority over the churches that choose to participate.


You see, I do believe that Scripture is our authority for doctrine.

This will lead to various interpretations, but these interpretations should be of God's Word rather than theiries about what the Bible may teach. Disagreement over interpretation includes recognizing the competing interpretation is a valid interpretation of the text itself but disagreeing that it is the correct one. So we, were this the case, would remain united in Christ, agreeing to disagre over interpretation. Abd this would not be a significant disagreement.

BUT we have Baptists who carry over pieces of Roman Catholic theology. Some of this they "re form" to fit their ideas. They claim to flow God's Word but they do not.

Taking pieces of Roman Catholic theogy divorced from Roman Catholicism simply does not work.

If I asked you why you believed something you may point to Scripture and a counsel or teaching of a pope. That would be fair because of your belief regarding the RCC authority.

If you ask a Baptist then they should give you passages stating what they believe because they claim Scripture as their authority. But many - most here - can't. They give you a verse or two then pages of writings from men telling you what the Bible really teaches.

They have many unofficial "popes", and their faith is sad because they claim to follow God's actual words.


I have much more respect for you than those Baptists because you are honest about your faith. You belueve the Bible as interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church. I disagree with you, but I respect you.
 

Hutch

Member
Another Baptist pastor that gets it wrong about Catholics. Catholics DO claim their doctrines align with scripture and popes cannot change the dogma of the Church.
They just re-interpret it based divine revelation they receive from God. Baptist believe that, with the completion of the Word of God, there is no need for new revelation.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
They just re-interpret it based divine revelation they receive from God. Baptist believe that, with the completion of the Word of God, there is no need for new revelation.

Nothing new. Just doctrine firmly grounded in God's word. The Church has taught Hell exists as an eternal punishment for those die rejecting Christ. The Church has taught this always.

Baptists (except for the small sect of universalist Baptists) agree with Catholics on this belief
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Interesting. I would have thought it were more.

But yes, "Baptist" does not refer to a single denomination.

I disagree about needing a pope for unity. I do not believe we are to be united in doctrine (the churches in Acts were not united in doctrine). But I do believe we should be united in Christ (not only Baptist, but all Christians).

The associations and conferences are not, I agree, ecumenical councils. These do not have authority over the churches that choose to participate.

If Bible alonism was monolithic and every Bible alone man was Lutheran on reading the Scriptures guided by The Holy Spirit, it would an open and shut case, game set match, see you in Church.

That would be the powerful manifestation and testimony that God had inspired Luther’s new doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the rejection of the Catholic, Apostolic Church was valid. It would be totally compelling vindication. It would be indubitable.

Instead, what has manifested since Luther’s “inspired” new doctrine, if we were to use the Scriptural assessment of judging a tree by its fruit?

All Bible aloners will say they derive their doctrines from Bible alone and that they are guided by The Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.
But it is precisely at the point of interpretation of scripture that they part ways with each other. Why? Aren’t they supposed to be guided by The Holy Spirit when reading the Scriptures, as pious inspired textual critics?

What we see endless divisions and conflict over interpretations and doctrines from the same bible.
What kind of fruit are we looking at here, is this what God wanted?

It takes brutal honesty and humility to admit the truth here. This idea of Luther’s is not from God.

Every interpretation of scripture that deviates from Luther’s “inspired” interpretations proves Luther false.
It also proves the Catholic Church true.
 
Last edited:

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
If Bible alonism was monolithic and every Bible alone man was Lutheran on reading the Scriptures guided by The Holy Spirit, it would an open and shut case, game set match, see you in Church.

That would be the powerful manifestation and testimony that God had inspired Luther’s new doctrine of Sola Scriptura and the rejection of the Catholic, Apostolic Church was valid. It would be totally compelling vindication. It would be indubitable.

Instead, what has manifested since Luther’s “inspired” new doctrine, if we were to use the Scriptural assessment of judging a tree by its fruit?

All Bible aloners will say they derive their doctrines from Bible alone and that they are guided by The Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.
But it is precisely at the point of interpretation of scripture that they part ways with each other. Why? Aren’t they supposed to be guided by The Holy Spirit when reading the Scriptures, as pious inspired textual critics?

What we see endless divisions and conflict over interpretations and doctrines from the same bible.
What kind of fruit are we looking at here, is this what God wanted?

It takes brutal honesty and humility to admit the truth here. This idea of Luther’s is not from God.

Every interpretation of scripture that deviates from Luther’s “inspired” interpretations proves Luther false.
It also proves the Catholic Church true.
The problem with Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura is Luther could not divorce his understanding from his worldview (his understanding was Roman Catholic, he identified problems in the Catholic practice which the Roman Catholic Church realized and addressed after the Reformation).

I was thinking more about pre-Reformation "sola scriptura".

Differences in practice and doctrine existed during the Apostolic Church period. Paul even addressed this by saying these differences are not to be judged because "Christ will make rhem stand". The Jerusalem Council addressed, to an extent, some of these differences. And we can see these differences in Paul's letters addressing various congregations.

I am not really concerned about differences in interpretation. I am more concerned with adhering to God's words as the authority of our doctrine. We "see through a glass, dimly" at this time. But Christians would be unified if we had the same authority for doctrine despite "denominational" differences based on interpretation.
 

Zaatar71

Well-Known Member
No, we hold to what the scriptures teach regarding things such as Atonement, and we use other sources written by reformed and Baptists who also exegeted that belief straight from the scriptures themselves

Early New England

The story of the commitment of early Baptists to the doctrines of grace is a picture of unity and fortitude. The earliest Baptist in America, Roger Williams, was a decided Calvinist and built his theory of religious liberty on his commitment to total depravity, unconditional election, effectual calling, perseverance of the saints, and definite atonement. Those who persecuted men over matters of conscience were guilty of an Arminian, popish error of free will, as if it lay in the power of a man’s will to believe evangelically simply because the magistrate threatens him with punishment if he doesn’t.
Isaac Backus, the historian of Baptists in New England in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, had clear intentions to show that these Baptists were ‘sound in the faith and much acquainted with experimental and practical religion.'[1] He was careful to publish, therefore, not only their experiences of suffering for the sake of Baptist ecclesiology and freedom of conscience, but their confessions of faith on theological issues as well. The story of John Clarke, according to the method of Backus, would not be complete without establishing his theological convictions. Clarke, the founder of the second Baptist church in Rhode Island and America, begins his personal confession of faith by showing his unity with the Puritans and Pilgrims of Massachusetts in affirming that the ‘decree of God is that whereby God hath from eternity set down with himself whatsoever shall come to pass in time.’ A part of this decree consists of the unconditional election of certain individuals to salvation.

Election is the decree of God, of his free love, grace, and mercy, choosing some men to faith, holiness and eternal life, for the praise of his glorious mercy; I Thes. i. 4, II Thes. ii. 13, Rom. viii. 29, 30. The cause which moved the Lord to elect them who are chosen, was none other but his mere good will and pleasure, Luke xii, 32.[2]


Obadiah Holmes, Clarke’s friend, shared not only his Baptist convictions and willingness to suffer for truth, but joined him in his confidence in God’s wise and certain purpose in salvation. A distillation of total depravity, particular and unconditional election, effectuality calling, and final perseverance constitute his affirmation that ‘no man can come to the Son but they that are drawn by the Father to the Son, and they that come, he in no wise will cast away.’ This doctrine is wrapped in the historical certainty of the irrevocable nature of Christ’s reconciling death: ‘I believe God hath laid the iniquity of all his elect and called ones, upon him,’ Holmes affirmed. For this reason we can be assured that ‘the Father is fully satisfied, and the debt is truly paid to the utmost farthing, and the poor sinner is quit, and set free from all sin past, present and to come.'[3]

The Move South

The first two generations of Southern Baptists received nurture and kingdom zeal from a theological system they called ‘the doctrine of grace.’ Bequeathed to them by their Baptist forefathers, this understanding of God’s infinite majesty and the pure gratuity of his saving activity defined Baptist faith and practice. Subsequent generations succumbed to the theological famine which plagued twentieth-century American Christianity. Perhaps by God’s good providence a reminder of the grace that formed us will inspire a restoration-of, what?-let’s say, of ourselves, to the fountain of God’s life-giving grace and to the understanding of that grace which gave godly vision to our founders.

First Baptist Church of Boston, established by Thomas Gould with the help of Particular Baptists from England, played a major role in the establishing of Baptist life in the South. William Screven, a Baptist from England and signer of the Somerset Confession of Faith, was ordained by the church in January 1682 so that he might establish a church in Kittery, Maine. Later the church in Boston set aside the group in Kittery as a separate congregation. A part of the examination included their determining that the Kittery group conscientiously acknowledged the Second London Confession of Faith. This church eventually moved, in 1696, to Charleston, South Carolina, becoming the first Baptist Church in the South. When Screven retired as pastor, he warned the congregation to obtain a man to lead them as soon as possible and be careful that he is ‘orthodox in faith, and of blameless life, and does own the confession of faith put forth by our brethren in London in 1689.’

The power and influence of this confession continued for many years. Three of the most notable pastors of the church were Oliver Hart, Richard Furman, and Basil Manly.


Southern Baptist beginnings were self-consciously and vigorously Calvinistic. This is reflected in the confessions, the associations, the preachers, and the theologians. The changes that have come could with clear justification be called ‘theological apostacy.’ Some feel the force of this historical reality and with both conscience and conviction desire to restore the spiritual dynamic of the living truth of the documents. Others would rather ignore the implications of this theological matrix. As the outworkings of this apostacy have established themselves, we should see that the changes have not contributed to our health but have spawned a climate of theological disunity, rampant absenteeism, a circus mentality in much evangelism, and a justified distress concerning the spirituality of professing Christians.
Dr.Tom Nettles
 
Last edited:

Cathode

Well-Known Member
The problem with Luther's doctrine of sola scriptura is Luther could not divorce his understanding from his worldview (his understanding was Roman Catholic, he identified problems in the Catholic practice which the Roman Catholic Church realized and addressed after the Reformation).



Differences in practice and doctrine existed during the Apostolic Church period. Paul even addressed this by saying these differences are not to be judged because "Christ will make rhem stand". The Jerusalem Council addressed, to an extent, some of these differences. And we can see these differences in Paul's letters addressing various congregations.

I am not really concerned about differences in interpretation. I am more concerned with adhering to God's words as the authority of our doctrine. We "see through a glass, dimly" at this time. But Christians would be unified if we had the same authority for doctrine despite "denominational" differences based on interpretation.

Interpretation determines doctrine, no unity in interpretation means no unity in doctrine.

I was thinking more about pre-Reformation "sola scriptura".

What made Luther’s Sola Scriptura so revolutionary was that it wasn’t taught before.
And neither was his “ Faith alone “ idea.

These were entirely new revolutionary ideas that the entire reformation was built on.

No more labouring under the same singular ancient interpretation of Scripture, but to be free to interpret the scriptures all for yourself. That each man is free to determine his own doctrine, without the aid of the Catholic Church and its ancient tradition.

As Shepherds guide sheep through pasture, The Catholic Apostolic Shepherds always guided the sheep through scripture, the same ancient paths. Luther’s idea was to tell the sheep that they could shepherd themselves, they could interpret the pasture for themselves, that they didn’t need the old Apostolic Shepherds anymore.

This resulted in self shepherding sheep that scattered, not just away from the ancient Apostolic Shepherds, but scattering from each other, viewing each other with suspicion and butting heads constantly with other sheep, separating unity from one another. Scattering into the new phenomenon of denominationalism.

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering." Cyprian Bishop of Carthage 251 Ad.

Scattering is the sign of broken unity with Christ’s appointed Shepherds, it always has been.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Interpretation determines doctrine, no unity in interpretation means no unity in doctrine.



What made Luther’s Sola Scriptura so revolutionary was that it wasn’t taught before.
And neither was his “ Faith alone “ idea.

These were entirely new revolutionary ideas that the entire reformation was built on.

No more labouring under the same singular ancient interpretation of Scripture, but to be free to interpret the scriptures all for yourself. That each man is free to determine his own doctrine, without the aid of the Catholic Church and its ancient tradition.

As Shepherds guide sheep through pasture, The Catholic Apostolic Shepherds always guided the sheep through scripture, the same ancient paths. Luther’s idea was to tell the sheep that they could shepherd themselves, they could interpret the pasture for themselves, that they didn’t need the old Apostolic Shepherds anymore.

This resulted in self shepherding sheep that scattered, not just away from the ancient Apostolic Shepherds, but scattering from each other, viewing each other with suspicion and butting heads constantly with other sheep, separating unity from one another. Scattering into the new phenomenon of denominationalism.

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering." Cyprian Bishop of Carthage 251 Ad.

Scattering is the sign of broken unity with Christ’s appointed Shepherds, it always has been.
I teroretation does determine doctrine.

I was not talking about unity in doctrine.

The Apostolic Church did not have unity in doctrine

I was talking about unity in Christ.


If churches trusted in God's Word and relied on His words for doctrine then the disunity in doctrine would be of minor concern. If that occurred then most Protestant denominations would not exist today. The Catholic Church would not exist today.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
I teroretation does determine doctrine.

I was not talking about unity in doctrine.

The Apostolic Church did not have unity in doctrine

I was talking about unity in Christ.

If churches trusted in God's Word and relied on His words for doctrine then the disunity in doctrine would be of minor concern. If that occurred then most Protestant denominations would not exist today. The Catholic Church would not exist today.

I see your point, but what I witness with my own eyes is Bible aloners separating to such an extent on doctrine that they call other Bible aloners unsaved.
Where is the unity in Christ there?

It is evident that physical segregation is the separation of the body of Christ, not unity in Christ.

And where does this disunity have its origin but interpretation of Scripture and the doctrines therefrom.

So they are in disunity of heart and Mind, and are physically segregated as a sign of their disunity of heart and Mind.

You might hold them as part of the unity, but they don’t reciprocate the same. Then you might say anecdotally that you have other denomination friends that consider you saved, but you don’t gather as one body each Sunday.

Unity in Christ is gathering in one heart and mind and one body.

Bible alonism is brown pastures, torn up by head butting segregated sheep. It is turbulent waters with no rest for the soul, no settled interpretation or settled essential doctrine.
 
Top