A Baptist Christian a contradiction of terms

[dadlltj]

We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents.—Charles H. Spurgeon

Some very well known "Baptist" theologians have written many things to promote the "baptist" faith. It is difficult for me to see the term "baptist" and "Christian" in the same sentence. It is a contradiction of terms.

One question....of many.....is how can Spurgeon say that "the baptist are the orginal Christians"? The term Christian was not used until

Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Long after John was called "The Baptist".???

Second if your going to see Christians before Acts 11 then why stop at John. If you going to go back and find the first person in the bible the call our Master....Lord.... then your going to have to go back at least to Enoch.

Jud 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Jud 1:15 To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.

Enoch confessed the Lord and prophesied of His second coming....

Humm.. I don't see anyone calling themselves after Enoch. Why is that?

 

[rsr]

Because this thread was begun by a non-Baptist it is being transferred to a more appropriate forum.

 

[Darron Steele]

I am going to answer this as a non-Baptist. I identify as a `Christian only.'

It takes a lot more than a name to make someone a Christian. "Christian" is a rename of "disciple" (NASB) which underlying Greek is also translated "follower" (ICB). Implicitly, this means `follower of Christ.'

After Acts 11:26, Christians still referred to themselves as "disciples" and "believers" etc.. The name did not make or unmake one into a Christian. What s/he did made a Christian -- did s/he follow Christ. If so, then s/he is a Christian.

Baptists do not name themselves after John the Baptist. In the 1500's and 1600's, enemies of a Christian group called them "Anabaptists," from which the Baptists developed.

For convenience, many followers of Christ who have accepted that group's teachings as the best way per Scripture to follow Christ, continue to refer to themselves as Baptists.

The contradiction you wish for does not exist. Baptists follow Christ, which makes them Christians.

-----
For your information, I typically only have a few hours per day to post here.

 

[dadlltj]

Darren Thanks for the response. That sounds good but you response does not fit the scriptures.

First I do not understand how you can say.

It takes a lot more than a name to make someone a Christian. "Christian" is a rename of "disciple" (NASB) which underlying Greek is also translated "follower" (ICB). Implicitly, this means `follower of Christ.'

The word Christian comes from the greek word

Christianos and is not a "rename" on the word disciple. It is only found 3 times in the Protestant canon period. Disciple is found many times.

Peter gave divine sancition to the term "Christian" In

1Pe 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

I can not in any way see where anyone could rationally think the term "Christian" is a just a rewrite of disciple.

Baptists do not name themselves after John the Baptist. In the 1500's and 1600's, enemies of a Christian group called them "Anabaptists," from which the Baptists developed.

For convenience, many followers of Christ who have accepted that group's teachings as the best way per Scripture to follow Christ, continue to refer to themselves as Baptists.

Sure they do. The quote I posted from Spurgeons did not claim a name in the Ana-Baptist. Can you find a quote from Spurgeons where he claimed the "baptist" orginated from the Ana-Baptist?

For convenience????

The contradiction you wish for does not exist. Baptists follow Christ, which makes them Christians

The contradiction I speak of is not that simple. First..... not all baptist follow Christ and neither do those that call themselves Christians. So that is a push. Nothing gained or lost in the discussion. However there are many baptist that would rather be called "Baptist" then to be called after there own Master in being termed a Christian. This is sad. The contradiction I speak of is one where claiming hertiage in a group other than in Christ. This is a contradiction. One can not be both. One is far more important than the other. Paul preached against this very thing in

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

Christ is not divided.

 

[Scarlett O.]

It is difficult for me to see the term "baptist" and "Christian" in the same sentence. It is a contradiction of terms.

As a baptist, I disagree with Spurgeon's statement.

And yours...

It's not that the terms baptist and Christian are contradictory terms, it's just that they are not synonymous terms.

One question....of many.....is how can Spurgeon say that "the baptist are the orginal Christians"? The term Christian was not used until ......Long after John was called "The Baptist".???

John, being called the "baptizer", has nothing to do with being a member of a bapist church. Baptists don't follow John the Baptist. We admire and appreciate his obedience to the Lord, but that's all. We aren't named after him because we do not represent him in any way, shape, or form nor do we proclaim him in any way, shape, or form.

Enoch confessed the Lord and prophesied of His second coming....

Humm.. I don't see anyone calling themselves after Enoch. Why is that?

I don't know about that......I knew a guy named Enoch once. :laugh:

 

[dadlltj]

Scarlett...

John, being called the "baptizer", has nothing to do with being a member of a bapist church. Baptists don't follow John the Baptist. We admire and appreciate his obedience to the Lord, but that's all. We aren't named after him because we do not represent him in any way, shape, or form nor do we proclaim him in any way, shape, or form.

John being called a baptist has noting to do with being a member of a baptist church? Do you make up your own rules?

Why do you call yourself a baptist?

By the way.... landmark and orginal and many other baptist do preach him. I have heard it time and time again. So don't tell me they don't.

It's not that the terms baptist and Christian are contradictory terms, it's just that they are not synonymous terms.

Seems like we need to define contradiction...

www.m-w.com defines it as

a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other a round square is a contradiction in terms

Do you not see a contradiction?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Whoa, brother....I ain't looking to fight you....I don't even know you. :saint:

Do you make up your own rules?

When I play monopoly.....:laugh:

Why do you call yourself a baptist?

Well.....I suppose because that's the name of the church I attend and belong to. It certainly has nothing to do with John the Baptist. When I got saved, I wasn't following him, I was responding in obedience to God and conviction of the Holy Spirit to follow Jesus Christ.

Look, when I get to heaven, no one is going ask me to show my "baptist" credentials. Heaven won't be segregated with baptist on the southside and Methodists on the northside. All that will matter is have I been saved by the Blood of the Lamb.

By the way.... landmark and orginal and many other baptist do preach him. I have heard it time and time again. So don't tell me they don't.

I wouldn't presume to tell you anything. It might ruffle your feathers. I don't know what you mean when you say they "preach" him. What do you mean?

Seems like we need to define contradiction... Do you not see a contradiction?

Your example of a "round square" being a contradiction is correct.

An object cannot be drawn, labeled, nor measured as round and square at the same time. Those are both measurements. One has to be one, the other, or neither.

But, I can be a member of a baptist church and a Christian at the same time. The word Christian defines my religious convictions and my belief system and shows the world who my Master is. I believe in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and have confessed my sin and professed His name and therefore I am a Christian.

The term baptist only tells the world which Christian church I belong to. It's just an organizational term. One can be a baptist and NOT be saved. Being a member of baptist church does not make Jesus Christ one's Master. I am not convicted by the Holy Spirit to join a church.

Christianity - that's my religion.
Baptist - that's the name of my church and my particular organizational groups of Christians.

 

[dadlltj]

Scarllett I don't want to fight either. A good meaningful discussion....Yes. I said what I said to be pointed. I hope I did not offend you??

I wouldn't presume to tell you anything. It might ruffle your feathers. I don't know what you mean when you say they "preach" him. What do you mean?

I have personally heard men go so far as claim Christ was a "baptist" himself because he was baptized of John. I have heard men say that if they where not "baptist" then they would be ashamed. The story goes on and on but you get the gist of it. If you study the baptist history you will find these men got such ideals by following traditions of men. They followed what another man wrote and not what the scriptures teach. Like Spurgeon and Pink... and Gill and etc....

I am glad that you are grounded in Christ Jesus.... but there is no reason to call yourself after any other but Christ Jesus. When you say you are a baptist you are speaking of another.

I believe in the shed blood of Jesus Christ and have confessed my sin and professed His name and therefore I am a Christian.

The term baptist only tells the world which Christian church I belong to. It's just an organizational term. One can be a baptist and NOT be saved. Being a member of baptist church does not make Jesus Christ one's Master. I am not convicted by the Holy Spirit to join a church.

Christianity - that's my religion.
Baptist - that's the name of my church and my particular organizational groups of Christians.

With all due respect the word "baptist" means nothing to this world. Anyone that has any sense of the word would immediately have to ask "what branch" or "what version" of them. Those who know the baptist would have to say that even those of the same name do not believe the same. Many baptist call other baptist heretics.

How do you feel about I Cor 3:4?

For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

There is no room to organize under any name associated to another man. No matter what organization you name it....it is in opposition to I Cor 3:4.

 

[John of Japan]

dadlltj, you have a chip on your shoulder. What does it matter to you, a non-Baptist, if we call ourselves Baptist? "What is in a name?" as Shakespeare said. It is an external thing. What matters far more is, are we walking with Christ?

I call myself a Baptist willingly and will continue to do so because:
(1) Nothing in the Scripture tells me not to.
(2) It is my heritage as a believer.
(3) It says what I want people to know about my beliefs, the Baptist distinctives.
(4) The Bible used the word first, even if I do not consider John the Baptist to be the same kind of Baptist as I am.

 

[Don]

How do you feel about I Cor 3:4?....There is no room to organize under any name associated to another man. No matter what organization you name it....it is in opposition to I Cor 3:4.

If I may?

Around the 3rd or 4th century, the Roman Catholics started organizing (up for dispute, I know). It was about this time that infant baptism became popular. There were those, however, who disagreed with infant baptism, and deigned to go against the grain and re-baptize children and adults. They became known as ana-baptists. Sometime after the reformation, it was eventually shortened and became just "baptist."

So it isn't an identification with John the Baptist; it's an association thing based on what was considered an incorrect practice.

I think Spurgeon goes a little too far; I believe I'm a Christian by second birth, and a Baptist by conviction.

As for the reference to 1 Cor 3:4, nah, it ain't in opposition, if you're trying to say that any organization is incorrect. Remember, Acts 2 says they added 3,000 unto the church that day. I doubt they called themselves "First Baptist Church," but I also doubt they called themselves non-denominational. But they were definitely organized, and even set about appointing deacons.

What's in opposition to 1 Cor 3:4 is if we say we're following the teachings of John the Baptist, who taught repentence. Most of us Baptists, however, follow the teachings of Christ, who taught "Follow me."

 

[DQuixote]

dadlltj, you've offered many incorrect assumptions in support of your position. I agree with John of Japan ~~ there's a chip on your shoulder ~~ or better still, you have an axe to grind. Several persons have corrected your misunderstanding. Perhaps you need to reexamine your sources.

:jesus:

 

[Scarlett O.]

How do you feel about I Cor 3:4?

Well, now that you've asked....I'll tell you.

I think that 1 Corinthians 3:21 explains 3:4. Paul said don't take glory in other people.

But we do this all of the time. Christians get so caught up with certain preachers, pastors, and even wise laypeople that they end up idolizing these people instead of worshipping Jesus.

One church might get puffed up and think that their pastor is some kind super-pastor and that their church is more important than others.

Others may begin to cling the teachings of great Christian writers, both men and women, and ignore God's holy word.

But I don't see where any of this is insinuating that one should not be a member of a local church, whatever it's name may be.

We as baptists do not "glory" in John the Baptist.

There is no room to organize under any name associated to another man.

We, as baptists, haven't done that.

May I make an observation? I know alot of non-denomination church members. I have even attended a city-wide women's bible study where we are not allowed to disclose our denomination. Well, we can, but it is highly discouraged. I understand the importance of unity......I really do.

But what I have noticed over the years is that the term "non-denominational" has become a denomination unto itself. So does it matter if there is a certain label or not on one's church?

 

[John of Japan]

Well said, Scarlett O. 1 Cor. 3:4 does not forbid us from attaching a name to our church, it forbids us from attaching ourselves as a group to a man other than Christ.

Many movements have been started with the intention of duplicating the details of the first century church: the Church of Christ, 7th Day Adventists, the Brethren, etc. Some of these groups are seriously bent, others are not much different than us Baptists.

But NT Christianity is not about the details. It is about the Savior and walking with Him daily. It is about dying to self and living for the Lord and others. It is about glorifying God in every part of your life. It is about reaching our loved ones and our neighbors and the world for Christ. We can call ourselves Baptist and do every single one of these things. :saint:

 

[dadlltj]

First, I do not have a chip on my shoulder.

John how have you determined this? You got this from..... 3 posts? Have I offended you?

Since all of you seem to agree with Scarlett. I would like to deal with Scarlett's reply to 1 Cor 3:4.

Well, now that you've asked....I'll tell you.

I think that 1 Corinthians 3:21 explains 3:4. Paul said don't take glory in other people.

He said.... and I quote.....

1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

When you say you are a baptist or that you are of.... anyone other than Christ you are glorying in men.

Can you give a New Testament example where a church was named by any other name than the town of its residence? Can you? So you believe in Sola Scriptura?

But I don't see where any of this is insinuating that one should not be a member of a local church, whatever it's name may be.

We as baptists do not "glory" in John the Baptist.

Scarlett I have given examples and you still say that baptist do not glory in John the Baptist. Why is that? What about Spurgeons? Or Pink or Gill?

Has you paster every quoted Spurgeons? or Gill? Has he ever esteemed these men as leaders of the faith.

So it doesn't matter what a local church is named? Do you really think you speak for the majority of baptist. John Japan do you agree with this?

 

[dadlltj]

John...

Well said, Scarlett O. 1 Cor. 3:4 does not forbid us from attaching a name to our church, it forbids us from attaching ourselves as a group to a man other than Christ.

John can you show me where they is a name attached to any NT church other than where that chruch was geographically? Name one? Don't you think that we should follow the example of scripture?

Many movements have been started with the intention of duplicating the details of the first century church: the Church of Christ, 7th Day Adventists, the Brethren, etc. Some of these groups are seriously bent, others are not much different than us Baptists.

And this means what? So they are wrong as well. I never said they where not. I am at the moment am dealing with baptist.

But NT Christianity is not about the details. It is about the Savior and walking with Him daily. It is about dying to self and living for the Lord and others. It is about glorifying God in every part of your life. It is about reaching our loved ones and our neighbors and the world for Christ.

Not about the details? You mean to tell me that you do not believe Christianity does not involve details?

We can call ourselves Baptist and do every single one of these things.

Never said you couldn't. I said it was wrong to call yourself a baptist. You do call yourself that don't you? Now explain to me clearly how calling yourself a baptist is not call yourself after another man's name? Or group of men? You can not...

You are organizing under the name of MEN. When someone rides by your church they see you call yourself a baptist. It is on the sign isn't it? What do people call you? Would you rather they call you a baptist or a Christian?

Remember I said that Baptist and Christian where a contradiction of terms...

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

 

[Pastor Larry]

It is difficult for me to see the term "baptist" and "Christian" in the same sentence.

Look again ... You just did it.

It is a contradiction of terms.

Actually, it is more properly a redundancy. There are Christians who are not Baptists, but the Bible teaches a Baptist polity and theology.

One question....of many.....is how can Spurgeon say that "the baptist are the orginal Christians"?

Because when we look at what the NT teaches about church polity and doctrine, that is most clearly found in the Baptist church through the ages.

Long after John was called "The Baptist".???

John was called "the Baptist" not because he was the fathers of Baptists, but because he was known as the Baptizer. Totally different issue. Baptists aren't baptist because of John. We are baptist because of our beliefs on NT polity and doctrine.

the early churches needed no other names because noone had yet split off. They were all the same.

Humm.. I don't see anyone calling themselves after Enoch. Why is that?

Because no one follows Enoch.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I said it was wrong to call yourself a baptist......Now explain to me clearly how calling yourself a baptist is not call yourself after another man's name? Or group of men? You can not...

Actually, I did. Three times to the best of my ability, I explained that. You just don't agree with me. That doesn't mean that I didn't clearly explain it.

We'll just agree to disagree.

Stick around the BaptistBoard and get involved in some other topics. There are a lot of good people here, both baptist and otherwise.

Of course, there are a also a few "cracked nuts", but you'll know them when you see them. :laugh:

P.S. I have heard of Charles Spurgeon and have read a few of his on-line sermons. One sermon, on the rolling away of the rock from the tomb and it's many implications, was quite good.

But my preacher does not "preach" him. He preaches Jesus.

I have never heard of Mr. Pink or Mr. Gill. Literally never.

 

[BobRyan]

You are right to say that John "the baptizer" was not actually "Baptist". He died before the death of Christ and certainly would be a "Seventh-day Baptist" if a Baptist at all -- even by Baptist standards.

Hint: I don't think you will find one single word in scripture from John in favor of OSAS or "faith alone" or the rapture nor does he say anything showing a Calvinist leaning (for our Calvinist Baptist friends)

I also agree with you that if the intent is to show that John is a true follower of the Messiah (Christ) a child of God then so also is Enoch and we should be just as willing to identify with any of these saints.

Having said that - I agree with Spurgeon that not all Christians went into apostacy along with the RCC. Groups existed throughout history that held to the early first century faith of the true Christian faith.

But where do you find Baptist that were never part of any other Christian group? How far back do you go along the line of a given Baptist Christian in their family tree before you find people that were "not Baptists"??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[dadlltj]

Pastor Larry..

Look again ... You just did it.

Are you trying to be smart? Why would you say such with no emotion? DO you have a chip on your shoulder?

Quote:
One question....of many.....is how can Spurgeon say that "the baptist are the orginal Christians"?

Because when we look at what the NT teaches about church polity and doctrine, that is most clearly found in the Baptist church through the ages.

No it is not. Which Baptist? Do you mind detailing which ones and then maybe we can get other baptist involved to see how they disagree with other baptist policies?

John was called "the Baptist" not because he was the fathers of Baptists, but because he was known as the Baptizer. Totally different issue. Baptists aren't baptist because of John. We are baptist because of our beliefs on NT polity and doctrine.

No you are not a baptist because of your beliefs...you are a baptist because you call yourself one. You call yourself after another man or organization of men. Like ... Pharisee... etc...

Did Jesus ever talk of the Pharisee in a good light?

the early churches needed no other names because noone had yet split off. They were all the same.

Okay... do you think it was God's divine decree that the assembly of Christ split? DO you think Christ was pleased and still is pleased with such?

 

[dadlltj]

BobRyan...

You are right to say that John "the baptizer" was not actually "Baptist". He died before the death of Christ and certainly would be a "Seventh-day Baptist" if a Baptist at all -- even by Baptist standards.

Is this a joke? I sure hope it was....

Hint: I don't think you will find one single word in scripture from John in favor of OSAS or "faith alone" or the rapture nor does he say anything showing a Calvinist leaning (for our Calvinist Baptist friends)

How does this fit in this discussion?

I also agree with you that if the intent is to show that John is a true follower of the Messiah (Christ) a child of God then so also is Enoch and we should be just as willing to identify with any of these saints.

Should we call ourselves after any other man than Christ Jesus?

Having said that - I agree with Spurgeon that not all Christians went into apostacy along with the RCC. Groups existed throughout history that held to the early first century faith of the true Christian faith.

Can you see this prophosied in any of the scriptures? That the baptist are the ones that would not fall into apostacy? If you can't... then why believe it?

But where do you find Baptist that were never part of any other Christian group? How far back do you go along the line of a given Baptist Christian in their family tree before you find people that were "not Baptists"??

We do not have such history. It is a pipe dream to say it exists. Full of smoke with not tangible substance.