Final and Only Authority

i agree with you that a true saving faith is a born-again experience that WILL result in a changed life and good works for the glory of God (not ours). But the SBC has gotten away from that belief. The following statement was in the 1833 New Hampshire Confession of Faith:
"We believe that such only are real believers as endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from superficial professors; that a special Providence watches over their welfare; and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."

An almost identical statement was in the 1925 Baptist Faith and Message:
"All real believers endure to the end. Their continuance in well-doing is the mark which distinguishes them from mere professors. A special Providence cares for them, and they are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."

There is no section on Perseverance in either the 1963 or the 2000 BF&M statements. Instead the following "suggestion" is included in both the 1963 and 2000 statements:

Growth in grace should continue throughout the regenerate person’s life.

The chairman of the 1963 committee, Hershel Hobbs, led the effort to water down the requirements for a true saving faith. Out of this grew the "By Grace Only, through Faith Only" statement heard so often today. I consider this to be a statement of "Cheap Grace." As Bonhoeffer said: Salvation is free but it comes at a cost. American Baptists stood firm with the New Hampshire Confession. Methodists do not accept this watering down of the faith. Neither do I.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where did the believer's baptism doctrine come from? This is a Baptistic distinctive which goes back to the first century.

This is not about a name but rather a faith and practice. There is a connection with the term anabaptist. These churches were not re-baptizing but baptizing for the first time--with proper authority. They regarded the papacy as antichrist and without scriptural authority to baptize. Therefore their baptisms were invalid. This produced no small amount of consternation from the so-called holy see. Anabaptists were martyred for refusing to bow to Rome. It follows naturally that they were never a part of Rome nor the reformation of Rome. The reformers persecuted Anabaptists as well. This is about pedobaptism and antipedobaptists. Most of the above happened long before John Smythe was born.

Read about what happened to the Churches in the Valleys of Piedmont. Some one has been drunk with the blood of The Saints. See Rev. 17:6. This history has been documented and is available in cyber space. See: History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, S. Morland, also: The Non-Protestant Baptists by W. Bekgaard.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

So you are saying you do not know if it does? My faith is a know so faith, not a hope so faith. It is the Holy Spirit who tells me what writings are from God.

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." (1Jo2:27)

"He that is of God heareth God's words:" (John8:44)

"...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." (Mat 16:17)

Now maybe you just have a hope it is from God faith, but I have a know it is from God faith because God has revealed His truth to me via the Holy Ghost.

Why do you think Jesus said,

"Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." (Mat 12:31)

What is blasphemy of the Holy Ghost? The Holy Spirit reveals Truth. Rejecting thisTruth is rejecting the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It will not be forgiven.

 

See - you couldn't answer the question.

HankD

 

Jewish tradition, including the extra-biblical Mishna (Exodus Rabbah 43:4 and the Pesikta siRav Kahana 1:7), describes “teaching succession” from Moses on down. Jesus acknowledges this tradition:

Matthew 23:1-3 Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.”

Here Jesus is sanctioning a tradition of pharisaical authority, and in so doing he is giving legitimacy to the concept of extra-biblical oral tradition. Some pharisaical traditions were corrupt (therefore Jesus condemned them, just as here he condemns their personal hypocrisy), but some were authoritative, so that even Jesus commands obedience to them.

 

The term purgatory arose after the time of the apostles, as did the terms Trinity, Christianity, Second Coming, and Bible. But the idea of purgatory was already present before Jesus was born. We find a Jewish hero named Judas Maccabeus, about a century and a half before Jesus, praying for the dead (2 Macc. 12:43–45). This practice, known as the kaddish, was well established among Jews in Jesus’ own time. (Jews have historically believed, and many still believe, that the souls of the faithful departed undergo a period of purification which may be aided by the prayers and charity of the living. The Kaddish Foundation is a modern example of this ancient belief in action.)

Sanctification will continue, according to Paul, 'until he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ' (Phil. 1:6). In short, God will not rest until we are completely blessed and happy. If the process is not finished when we die, then God completes it in purgatory. That is why purgatory is not a second chance. All the souls in purgatory are assured of seeing God’s face. They simply do not yet see it fully.

Celibacy is simply a discipline in the Latin Rite of The Holy Catholic Church. The Eastern Rites of the Holy Catholic Church have married priests.

 

Are these the Jews of whom Jesus said, "In vain they do worship, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men?" Mt. 15:9.

See also: Mt. 23:27. Where Jesus compared them to hippocrites and whited sepulchers full of dead men's bones.

Then there is: "For those who guide this people are leading them astray, and those who are guided by them are brought to confusion." Isaiah 9:16.

Consider: Mt. 15:14, "Disregard them. They are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Would these be the ones who strain at gnats and swallow camels? Mt. 23:24.

The Jews are not good examples of those who follow God's commandments.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

And so Steve, you have pointed out the obvious ... good for you!

 

So you are saying you do not know if it does? .

 

Has anyone else noticed that every person including the author of the OP has quoted scripture alone to support their positions? But hey, can't find any proof in Scripture Alone!!

 

Thanks. I wasn't disputing the doctrine of Believer's Baptism. I believe that goes back to the baptism of Christ. Actually, I'm demonstrating another bedrock Baptist distinctive, that of Priesthood of the Believer. I share your firm belief in the divine origin and the ultimate authority of the Holy Bible. But I also believe that it's every Christian's right and responsibility to interpret God's Word for himself. In doing so, we should study the Bible and discuss its meaning with fellow Christians but the final responsibility for working out our own faith is with each of us. Pastors and missionaries, Deacons and Bible study leaders have a talent for encouraging us to do this and directing our study but they have no special ranking in the eyes of the Lord. The ground is level at the foot of the cross. Jesus said "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." The faithful woman who serves and cleans up after Wed. night supper is as important as the pastor. The Body has many parts add all of them are necessary in Christ's Church.
I think that's the real question to focus on in discussions with Catholics. They believe in the Priesthood of the Pope, Bishops and Priests and we believe in the Priesthood of the Believer. But I don't bash Catholics. I do have respectful conversations about their beliefs and mine. A former pastor of mine said "We're just one beggar offering a crumb of bread to another beggar." The ultimate objective is to share the true gospel to everyone and let the Holy Spirit take it from there.

BTW, it turns out I already own The Non-Protestant Baptists by W. Bekgaard on Kindle. So many books and so little time! I'll take a look at it now.

 

When I share my faith I first try to demonstrate it by my life. We should witness every day and say a few words if necessary. The ultimate test here on earth is how my faith has changed my life and the encounters with God I've had when I most needed Him. I talk about job losses, bad relationships, depression, and challenging medical situations. I show in that way how my Biblical beliefs and my personal relationship with Jesus Christ has given me hope and even joy in difficult (and also happy) times.

 

[

No, we also believe in the Priesthood of the Believer, but also in the ministerial priesthood to which some are called to lead the faithful. God has indeed placed people in positions of ecclesiastical authority over us, as many other Christian faith traditions also have their ordained ministers (priests), Bishops even. So we Catholics are not the only ones.

 

Which has given us thousands of Christian sects, with even members of the same faith tradition (like Baptists) splitting off from one another. Are we here to determine our own "truth" as regards religious matters, or is there one truth all should adhere to?