• 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

Cathode

Well-Known Member
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.

Disunity in interpretation is disunity in doctrine is disunity in fellowship.

I have witnessed a church split and it is horrendous, lifelong friends and even family members at odds and turning their backs on each other. Women crying, men cold faced but resolute packing and ignoring eye contact, lest they punch each other.
Two pastors arguing and condemning each other in the back carpark.
Breaking physical fellowship because of Scriptural interpretation.

That’s not the Lord leading people to lay in lush green pastures or by peaceful waters, to restore their souls.

I don’t know how you guys can go through that trauma. But then say you have unity in Christ.
 

Walter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
How many churches have split over doctrinal differences over Limited or Unlimited Atonement, open or closed communion, female pastor's, etc.?
Disunity in interpretation is disunity in doctrine is disunity in fellowship.

I have witnessed a church split and it is horrendous, lifelong friends and even family members at odds and turning their backs on each other. Women crying, men cold faced but resolute packing and ignoring eye contact, lest they punch each other.
Two pastors arguing and condemning each other in the back carpark.
Breaking physical fellowship because of Scriptural interpretation.

That’s not the Lord leading people to lay in lush green pastures or by peaceful waters, to restore their souls.

I don’t know how you guys can go through that trauma. But then say you have unity in Christ.

Just gather a random group of evangelical Christians together and ask 'which is it? Limited or Unlimited Atonement' and watch what happens.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Very interesting statement

Unpacking Athanasius, he explains.

If we now consider the object of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches to the reading of inspired Scripture. For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this object, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled on a stone of stumbling, thinking otherwise than they should think.” Athanasius, Orations 3,28 (c. A.D. 350).

“But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power” Athanasius, Festal Letter 2 (c. A.D. 350).

So even the devil can quote and interpret scripture, but does that make that interpretation correct, and authoritive.

It’s always at the point of interpretation that things go wrong.
 

Cathode

Well-Known Member
Jerome puts it more bluntly.

“And let them not flatter you themselves if they think they have Scripture authority sinc the devil himself has quoted Scripture texts…we could all, while preserving in the letter of Scripture, read into it some novel doctrine.’ Jerome, Dialogue Luciferians 28 (c. A.D. 379).

So what is being handed down then apart from the Scriptures.

The correct interpretation of those scriptures is what is being handed down.

The Apostles interpretation by Apostolic Tradition, which explains the scriptures.
 

JesusFan

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.


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.
The actual truth on this would be that those same Baptists that you are saying have defective theology are merely coming to the very same conclusions in their theology regarding what the bible teaches to us as those who assembled together and gave to us Confessions and creeds of the faith, so were are just following in a long tradition of sound scripture analysis and understanding
 

JesusFan

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).

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.
All conservative Christians would agree that the sacred scriptures themselves are our final and supreme authority in regards to all doctrines and practices
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
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
Calvinism ceased being the primary Baptist theology gradually, becoming less dominant in the mid-1800s as more moderate or Arminian views spread, and then largely declining in popularity within some denominations like the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) through the mid-20th century until a resurgence in the late 20th century. While early confessions were often Calvinistic, and some Baptist groups remain strongly Calvinistic today, this was a slow shift rather than a single event.

  • Mid-1800s: The adoption of the New Hampshire Confession in 1833, which contained a more moderate form of Calvinism, indicated a move away from the more strongly Calvinistic confessions of earlier years. Other confessions that were more explicitly Calvinistic were largely ignored by the majority of Baptists after the mid-1800s.
  • Mid-20th Century: In many Baptist churches, particularly in the SBC, Calvinism was on the decline, and liberal or modernistic views became more prevalent in seminaries. For a significant portion of the mid-20th century, Calvinism was not considered the primary or even a commonly held view in many circles.
  • Late 20th Century to Present: A resurgence of interest in Calvinism among some Baptists began in the latter part of the 20th century, leading to a division in some denominations where now both Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic viewpoints are present, sometimes in nearly equal numbers, as seen in a 2012 LifeWay Research survey of the SBC.
  • Appears at the same time higher critical theology was hitting the American church, and evolution, and the watering down of the inspiration of the scriptures was taking on full effect, which seemed to steer Baptist more towards ther free will model of salvation, but at end of 20th century and into the 21 st now, there has been an increase in moving back towards Calvinistic theology in Baptist churches and seminaries
 
Last edited:

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
But yes, "Baptist" does not refer to a single denomination.
Well, there are actually two definitions for "denomination"
1) A hierarchy - such as the Roman Catholic church - Power from the top - down
2) Having similar beliefs. - this explains Baptist churches - we have many similar beliefs - but NOT necessarily identical beliefs.; without infringing on our belief of local church autonomy.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Well, there are actually two definitions for "denomination"
1) A hierarchy - such as the Roman Catholic church - Power from the top - down
2) Having similar beliefs. - this explains Baptist churches - we have many similar beliefs - but NOT necessarily identical beliefs.; without infringing on our belief of local church autonomy.
True.

But I think of differences but the same kind (like denominations of money).
 
Top