A Baptist Christian a contradiction of terms

[dadlltj]

Scarlett..

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

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

Thank Christ Jesus he doesn't.

It is probabily a good thing you haven't heard of them. Those who have studied baptist history well them. They are considered among the top baptist theologians. Especially among reformed baptist.

 

[dadlltj]

I would like to add one more thought to the subject.

God divinely called John "The" Baptist or if you must Baptizer. (there is no need to be funny with the name. In english we call him Baptist.) He was given a divine name and purpose. Throughout 60 to 70 years of early NT history no one ever carried this title, rank or priviledge. No one. No one in scripture is every call "Baptist" or "Baptizer" besides John. No one. It is a mockery of his position, title and rank for people to call themselves "Baptist". They have no right to the name. None. No One is a true "baptist" any more than there is any more true Christs. They do not exist. Many may call themselves such but they are not.

In the scriptures and by scripture alone no one has the right to call themselves baptist.

John is "the" Baptist just as much as Jesus is the "Christ"

ho hē to is the definite article attached to John.

 

[dadlltj]

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.

Please explain where...

My sources are from the scriptures. Can you provide any scripture to support call yourself baptist?

 

[SBCPreacher]

dadlltj,

I've read most of your posts here. I don't agree with you, but I've read your posts.

Let me ask you, what is the name of the church you attend regularly?

 

[John of Japan]

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?

Take a look at your own signature. It is highly offensive. We know the Scriptures you are talking about. You are obviously saying that fundamental Baptists are Pharisees, since in those Scriptures Paul was decrying his own past as a Pharisee. That is an insult.

Take a look at your own OP. You don't get that it is offensive to say that a "Baptist Christian is a contradiction in terms"? That comes across as "It is not Christian to be a Baptist." And you unload all of this on a Baptist forum, and expect people not to be offended??

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?

If you are asking if I think I speak for the majority of Baptists, no, why would you think that from anything I've said?

If you are asking me if I agree that it doesn't matter what a local church is named, no I don't agree. A church planter (my ministry) should pray long and seriously about what he names the church. My co-worker named his church Bible Church. I named mine "Baptist." God led in both cases.

 

[SBCPreacher]

One more question.

I noticed that you were ordained in a IFB church. Since you no longer like the "title" Baptist, have you renounced your ordaination to and returned the document to the church that ordained you?

 

[John of Japan]

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?

Can you show me where there is a building attached to any NT church? No, you can't. If you want to play this game, we would all meet in homes, have no pianos, never try to win children to Christ with Sunday School...the list would go on and on.

I know of two groups in recent church history who followed your so-called Biblical example of having no names to their church. First of all we have Witness Lee, the errant disciple of Watchman Nee. Lee is the founder of the "Local Church" cult. They call their churches by the name of the city (r. e. "the church at Taipei") rather than giving their churches names. Does this do them any spiritual good? No. They are still a cult.

There is another group known simply as the "nameless movement." I actually went to Japanese language school with two of their female "missionaries." They make the exact same claims as you do about the wrongness of any name but "Christian" and believe it is wrong to name a church, yet they are full of aberrant doctrines.

You, sir, need to concentrate on the wonderful doctrines of the Word of God rather than an incidental fact recorded in the Bible with no commands or principles attached to it.

 

[dadlltj]

SBCPreacher..

Let me ask you, what is the name of the church you attend regularly?

I don't see yours named anywhere and what does that matter? It is not a baptist church. Is that good enough for you?

 

[dadlltj]

SBCPreacher..

I noticed that you were ordained in a IFB church. Since you no longer like the "title" Baptist, have you renounced your ordaination to and returned the document to the church that ordained you?

I throw it away about 15 years ago. Does a ordianation paper mean anything to you? Did Timothy or Titus ordain you?

 

[Darron Steele]

Multiple queries have been about `axe to grind' and the church home of the thread starter.

I would be surprised if "Church of Christ" is not in its name. In my experience, the radical majority of the Churches of Christ is the only group that has ever played a `name game' as a debating strategy.

 

[dadlltj]

John...

Take a look at your own signature. It is highly offensive. We know the Scriptures you are talking about. You are obviously saying that fundamental Baptists are Pharisees, since in those Scriptures Paul was decrying his own past as a Pharisee. That is an insult.

Nope... If I wanted to say that I would have said it. I said that in like manner I reject my past affilation that I might win Christ. He also said he counted ALL things but dung. Why did you assicate my statement with the Pharisee. I would have changed that if I could. But all speaks for itself.

Take a look at your own OP. You don't get that it is offensive to say that a "Baptist Christian is a contradiction in terms"? That comes across as "It is not Christian to be a Baptist." And you unload all of this on a Baptist forum, and expect people not to be offended??

This is a baptist forum but I am not in a baptist thread here. I accepted the move of the moderator and have not posted anywhere else and I will not. I am in the right place am I not?

The truth hurts and offends.

Mat 11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.

Looks like your take offence in my opposition to the baptist. Why is that? You have not provided any scripture to confirm that God divinely planned for those in Christ Jesus to call themselves Baptist.

 

[dadlltj]

Darron...

Multiple queries have been about `axe to grind' and the church home of the thread starter.

I would be surprised if "Church of Christ" is not in its name. In my experience, the radical majority of the Churches of Christ is the only group that has ever played a `name game' as a debating strategy.

Are you going to deal with the issues or make accusations you know nothing about. I am not of the Church of Christ denomination. I am of the Church. Those in Christ Jesus.

 

[Darron Steele]

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.

Evidently, you do not know as much about Scripture as you think you do.

Acts 11:26 "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (NASB).

The ICB translates "followers" from the same word the NASB translates "disciples."

So, now I repeat: 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.

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.

Christ is not divided.

Amen. We cannot divide Him either, even though many of us like to pretend we can by separating ourselves into groups and disowning everyone else.

 

[Darron Steele]

As for your `heat' in the post between my earlier ones today, I simply answered other people's questions.

I made no accusation to you.

 

[dadlltj]

Darren...

Evidently, you do not know as much about Scripture as you think you do.

Acts 11:26 "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (NASB).

The ICB translates "followers" from the same word the NASB translates "disciples."

So, now I reiterate: "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.

First...I have not taken any issue with those that follow Christ being called disciples and believers...None...

Second You must not believe that Peter's use of the term Christian mattered?

I mean he could have said Disciple or Believers and everything would be the same.... would it?

Do you believe Peter's words where his own or where they God's?

 

[dadlltj]

Darren...

Multiple queries have been about `axe to grind' and the church home of the thread starter.

Was this an accusation? Can you tell me how I could have taken it a different way? Seems self expressive to me...

Or did you just reference them and not agree with them?

 

[Darron Steele]

The point is very simple: Christians do not have to call themselves only Christians in order to be Christians.

Not calling oneself a Christian -- to the exlusion of anything else -- does not make one a non-Christian.

That is per the examples of Scripture. To claim otherwise is contrary to them.

 

[Darron Steele]

Darren...

Multiple queries have been about `axe to grind' and the church home of the thread starter.

Was this an accusation? Can you tell me how I could have taken it a different way? Seems self expressive to me...

Or did you just reference them and not agree with them?

It was not an accusation. One person did believe you had an `axe to grind' with a `chip on your shoulder' and another wanted to know your church affiliation. I was talking to them and anyone else interested.

You could have taken it and the whole post as an answer to multiple queries by others -- and nothing more. This is how you should have, because that is how it was intended.

 

[dadlltj]

John...

Can you show me where there is a building attached to any NT church? No, you can't. If you want to play this game, we would all meet in homes, have no pianos, never try to win children to Christ with Sunday School...the list would go on and on.

Can I show you in the scriptures where the early church meet house and won the lost?

I know of two groups in recent church history who followed your so-called Biblical example of having no names to their church. First of all we have Witness Lee, the errant disciple of Watchman Nee. Lee is the founder of the "Local Church" cult. They call their churches by the name of the city (r. e. "the church at Taipei") rather than giving their churches names. Does this do them any spiritual good? No. They are still a cult.

I can show you a 40 year history in the book of Act where they had no names attached to them. Where they cults?

There is another group known simply as the "nameless movement." I actually went to Japanese language school with two of their female "missionaries." They make the exact same claims as you do about the wrongness of any name but "Christian" and believe it is wrong to name a church, yet they are full of aberrant doctrines.

Humm.. never meet them. Don't fellowship with them.... Are you saying I am the same? Your wrong.

You, sir, need to concentrate on the wonderful doctrines of the Word of God rather than an incidental fact recorded in the Bible with no commands or principles attached to it.

No commands attached to them?

Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

Which name should you call yourself. The one fashioned after The NAME that is above all NAME or the others?

 

[dadlltj]

Darren...

The point is very simple: Christians do not have to call themselves only Christians in order to be Christians.

Not calling oneself a Christian -- to the exlusion of anything else -- does not make one a non-Christian.

That is per the examples of Scripture. To claim otherwise is contrary to them.

Never said they did.

Baptist is just not another term for disciple or Christian. Are you saying it is?