Michael Wrenn
New Member
Chick,
You mean, you think I am not a Baptist?
You mean, you think I am not a Baptist?
-
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!
A Personal Poll
- Thread starter Michael Wrenn
- Start date
Chick Daniels
Member
You are certainly no particular Baptist, something which you would gladly say "Amen" to, neither are you a Reformed Baptist. Tom Cassidy probably tosses you out because you are not a Landmark Baptist. I am not Landmark either. The key, I believe is that "Baptist" is not strictly a denominational term, but can be used as a descriptor of key distinctives. I believe that your Soteriology is far from what the Bible teaches (no personal offense intended), but you could just as easily be a Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, etc., or identify yourself only as a "Christian", "Biblicist" or other generic terms and yet have bad Soteriology. You identify yourself as a Baptist. Fine. You are a Baptist. You are not the same kind of Baptist that I am. Kind of like during the civil war--both the North and South were "American" but there were obvious differences.
Chick
Chick
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Chick,
No offense taken.
So, what would you say are those "key distinctives" that one must hold to be Baptist?
No offense taken.
So, what would you say are those "key distinctives" that one must hold to be Baptist?
Historic Baptist "Distinctives" (circa 1895 and the Fundamentalist resurgence in many denominations)
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Bible is sole authority for faith and practice. Inspiration. Inerrancy. Absolute truth.<LI>Regenerated church membership only<LI>Autonomy of local church<LI>Priesthood of each believer in prayer before God<LI>Soul liberty to interpret scriptures differently (while STILL "orthodox" not heterodox like some so-called baptists are on this forum)<LI>Immersion, Lord's Supper as only two ordinances, not sacraments<LI>Separation of church from government entanglement<LI>Separation ethically for a godly lifestyle and walk as believers<LI>Separation ecclesiastically from error and false doctrine (ecumenicism, compormise, etc)[/list]Under the Bible, the basic truths of the Word of God - inspiration, virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, literal 2nd coming - would be assumed as "evangelical" in doctrine. Would not require that a "baptist" be, say, a pre-trib. Just believe that Jesus IS coming again literally.
Hope this helps. Where would YOU differ from this "norm" of "baptists"?
<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Bible is sole authority for faith and practice. Inspiration. Inerrancy. Absolute truth.<LI>Regenerated church membership only<LI>Autonomy of local church<LI>Priesthood of each believer in prayer before God<LI>Soul liberty to interpret scriptures differently (while STILL "orthodox" not heterodox like some so-called baptists are on this forum)<LI>Immersion, Lord's Supper as only two ordinances, not sacraments<LI>Separation of church from government entanglement<LI>Separation ethically for a godly lifestyle and walk as believers<LI>Separation ecclesiastically from error and false doctrine (ecumenicism, compormise, etc)[/list]Under the Bible, the basic truths of the Word of God - inspiration, virgin birth, sinless life, vicarious death, bodily resurrection, literal 2nd coming - would be assumed as "evangelical" in doctrine. Would not require that a "baptist" be, say, a pre-trib. Just believe that Jesus IS coming again literally.
Hope this helps. Where would YOU differ from this "norm" of "baptists"?
Of course the most important thing that true Baptists believe is salvation by the new birth, ie faith alone in the finished work of Christ. We must begin with a foundation of personal faith in Christ and then grow in our spiritual life unto full maturity. You don't become a Baptist by just choosing to adhere to certain principes; you become a Baptist by giving saved, studying the Word, and then coming to believe the distinctives which Dr. Bob shared should be the natural result.
Michael, I don't know you at all, but I would encourage you to follow that course in your pursuit of the truth. Then when you become something it will be God's doing and not just man's doing.
Keep in the Word!!
[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: Circuitrider ]
Michael, I don't know you at all, but I would encourage you to follow that course in your pursuit of the truth. Then when you become something it will be God's doing and not just man's doing.
Keep in the Word!!
[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: Circuitrider ]
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Bob,
This may surprise you, but, of all the things you listed, I would differ only on the inerrancy issue.
Oh, about the word "orthodox", I think the definition of that varies with who is doing the defining.
Circuitrider,
Thanks.
This may surprise you, but, of all the things you listed, I would differ only on the inerrancy issue.
Oh, about the word "orthodox", I think the definition of that varies with who is doing the defining.
Circuitrider,
Thanks.
Actually doesn't surprise me at all, since I know you are a Baptist, too. And even the most left-leaning Baptist (not implying you are really that far) is closer to me than just about any Lutheran, Catholic, or Mormon I know. 
Okay. Group hug. Get any sweeter and we'll all need insulin shots . . .
[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
Okay. Group hug. Get any sweeter and we'll all need insulin shots . . .
[ October 31, 2001: Message edited by: Dr. Bob Griffin ]
John Wells
New Member
How about:
Don't worry, be happy!
Don't worry, be happy!
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Bob,
I should revise what I said, above--I believe the scriptures are the final authority, but I believe reason and experience are also authorities.
I should revise what I said, above--I believe the scriptures are the final authority, but I believe reason and experience are also authorities.
I differ from Dr. Bob's perspective on two points--
I don't accept inerrancy. I do accept the authority of the scriptures for matters of faith and practice.
Soul freedom is not, IMHO, the ability to differ on "interpretation" but rather on "application". I know this will cause a problem for those who insist on their own brand of doctrinal purity, but that is not necessarily a Baptist trait, but in that vein, the literalistic approach ignores the historical context in favor of a "flat Bible" approach. I have a hard time seeing where the entire Bible is to be interpreted in a verse-by-verse approach that basically equates the church with the theocracy of Israel, and suggests that the New Testament should be interpreted and applied in the same way that the law was interpreted and applied to Israel. In that, I differ from some, but certainly not all, Baptists.
How prominent is Dispensational Premillenialism among Baptists? The British and Australian Baptists I have met have all been preterists, and my college instructors were as well.
I don't accept inerrancy. I do accept the authority of the scriptures for matters of faith and practice.
Soul freedom is not, IMHO, the ability to differ on "interpretation" but rather on "application". I know this will cause a problem for those who insist on their own brand of doctrinal purity, but that is not necessarily a Baptist trait, but in that vein, the literalistic approach ignores the historical context in favor of a "flat Bible" approach. I have a hard time seeing where the entire Bible is to be interpreted in a verse-by-verse approach that basically equates the church with the theocracy of Israel, and suggests that the New Testament should be interpreted and applied in the same way that the law was interpreted and applied to Israel. In that, I differ from some, but certainly not all, Baptists.
How prominent is Dispensational Premillenialism among Baptists? The British and Australian Baptists I have met have all been preterists, and my college instructors were as well.
Bob Alkire
New Member
Ellis, you ask how prominent dispensational and premillenialism are among baptist. I can't say, but for the last 34 years that I have been a christian every church that I have been a member of has been. Not that all are but most of them where I've lived have been.
I've lived in Fl. and still do but have also lived in; Md.,Va.,N.C.,S.C.,Ga.,Tn.,Ar.,Tx.,Mn.,and Ky..
I've lived in Fl. and still do but have also lived in; Md.,Va.,N.C.,S.C.,Ga.,Tn.,Ar.,Tx.,Mn.,and Ky..
99% of the historic fundamental Baptists would be pre-trib literalists. Includes BBF, CBA, GARBC, Landmark, etc.
The further you go from fundamentalism, i.e. down the road to the General Baptists, or the American you get into divergent views.
SBC is about 1/2 fundamental and 1/2 liberal and again, the SBC "fundies" would be pre-trib and the others would drift into mid-trib or partial preterist.
Reformed Baptists (except me, brother) are almost all post/a-mill mixtures. So, what can I say. They have their calvinism straight but just are a little confused on prophecy!
The further you go from fundamentalism, i.e. down the road to the General Baptists, or the American you get into divergent views.
SBC is about 1/2 fundamental and 1/2 liberal and again, the SBC "fundies" would be pre-trib and the others would drift into mid-trib or partial preterist.
Reformed Baptists (except me, brother) are almost all post/a-mill mixtures. So, what can I say. They have their calvinism straight but just are a little confused on prophecy!
I think the linking of pre-trib dispensationalism with fundamentalism is pretty much a 20th century phenomenon. Baptist leaders such as B. H. Carroll and J. M. Pendleton were postmillennialists, others were amillenialists; but most would not be willing to kick these old men out of the conservative/fundamental category. And wasn't the famous fundamentalist leader W. B. Riley an amillennialist? But I do agree that fundamentalism and dispensational premillennialism have become almost inseparable partners in our time. Now that I've helped lead this discussion further off the beaten path...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
....
SBC is about 1/2 fundamental and 1/2 liberal and again, the SBC "fundies" would be pre-trib and the others would drift into mid-trib or partial preterist....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are, I know, regional differences, but I have come across VERY few SBC preterists, but a LOT of amillennialists.
My church, which would be considered conservative SBC, not fundamental and not moderate, is probably 3/4 pre-trib and 1/4 amillennial. But almost all would probably say it is an area Christians legitimately disagree on. Most would probably actually say they are "pan-millennialists".
Karen
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Karen ]
....
SBC is about 1/2 fundamental and 1/2 liberal and again, the SBC "fundies" would be pre-trib and the others would drift into mid-trib or partial preterist....
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There are, I know, regional differences, but I have come across VERY few SBC preterists, but a LOT of amillennialists.
My church, which would be considered conservative SBC, not fundamental and not moderate, is probably 3/4 pre-trib and 1/4 amillennial. But almost all would probably say it is an area Christians legitimately disagree on. Most would probably actually say they are "pan-millennialists".
Karen
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: Karen ]
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Karen,
Yes, I probably would. Except for a couple of "strange" views, I would characterize myself as moderately conservative.
Yes, I probably would. Except for a couple of "strange" views
, I would characterize myself as moderately conservative.<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
Aw, Michael, this is way to easy! You are a christian brother who holds to some different [read: "wrong"] interpretations of Scripture than I do. So would should you do?
REPENT and become a "Fundamental" Baptist like me!
Or if you get your heart and mind TOTALLY RIGHT WITH GOD, you could be called a "Reformed" Baptist!
Seriously, I probably jab at you more than most, "questioning" whether someone who believes like you can be REALLY saved!
But I still believe "soul liberty" is in the Book, so if you just want to be a "Baptist" I think you would fit just fine! And I am proud to call you my [wayward] brother!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
AMEN!
Aw, Michael, this is way to easy! You are a christian brother who holds to some different [read: "wrong"] interpretations of Scripture than I do. So would should you do?
REPENT and become a "Fundamental" Baptist like me!
Or if you get your heart and mind TOTALLY RIGHT WITH GOD, you could be called a "Reformed" Baptist!
Seriously, I probably jab at you more than most, "questioning" whether someone who believes like you can be REALLY saved!
But I still believe "soul liberty" is in the Book, so if you just want to be a "Baptist" I think you would fit just fine! And I am proud to call you my [wayward] brother!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>AMEN!
Michael,
I think you're still safe in calling yourself a Baptist. I wouldn't think of heading off in another direction if I were you. And do you really believe there are people on this board who hate you as you stated earlier? I sure hope no one does. We can disagree without being disagreeable, so to speak.
I think you're still safe in calling yourself a Baptist. I wouldn't think of heading off in another direction if I were you. And do you really believe there are people on this board who hate you as you stated earlier? I sure hope no one does. We can disagree without being disagreeable, so to speak.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Tom,
Thanks. But read my thread "Prayers for the Dead" on *All Other Discusions* and tell me if you still think I'm Baptist.
Yes, I think there are a couple of people--maybe more--here who hate me.
Thanks. But read my thread "Prayers for the Dead" on *All Other Discusions* and tell me if you still think I'm Baptist.
Yes, I think there are a couple of people--maybe more--here who hate me.