Baptist DEBATE (baptist only)

Dear Brother Bob,
According to the meaning established by the Baptist Board, which Bible Boy sets forth plainly in his post, I agree with your statement.

However, according to what I understand from Scripture and historical evidence, I disagree with your statement.

That is a fancy way of saying I disagree with you, but have no offense with your statement.

Though I may be wrong on this, the point you make above is the Baptist belief in local, visible church autonomy.

This is inmho, a valid Baptistic mark of identity.

This does not mean that all who will add the name Baptist to their body of faith, therefore identifying themselves (locally, visibly, etc.) as a Baptist body of believers are or can be accepted as Baptist.

That explains the continual separation among Baptists. Where we are able to find fellowship in common faith or practice we all do rejoice; where differences yet remain we remain unattached, except in a local, visible body of believers.

Many have taken this too literally and have gone about to establish their own righteousness (in the historic Baptist camps) I mean, but have begun to ignore the righteousness of God.

If I have left you in confusion, I will try to clear it up with a simple statement:

The local church has for its head, Christ Alone.
The local church has for its sole rule of faith and order, the Word of God Alone.

Neither of the above deny the use of articulating creeds, covenants, or other statements of faith as long as they adhere to the above.

There are, inmho, many non-denominational bodies of believers that are certainly Baptistic in their faith, practice and order. However by their own choice they refuse to claim the name of Baptist because initially (in the time of their organization) it was considered by the body to be an offensive term to the world.

These same bodies will claim no 'doctrine' but that of the Scripture alone, or Christ taught alone...etc.

It becomes their own rejection of the Baptist name, a name that historically was given to them by the enemies of the truth (one universal, invisible, body headed by an earthly representative of Christ on Earth, whose words supercede that of Scripture) that begins to move them more and more toward agreement with that enemy of local visible autonomy.

I use to be able to say no Baptist I know will deny freedom of consience, or sometimes called soul liberty. I use to be able to say no Baptist I know will deny eternal hope to any who look to God through Christ's atonement and who consistently and with purpose attempt to follow the words of the Apostle

In fact, I believe all that I have stated above is historically true of Baptists.

It is not the true motive of the heart the Baptist attempts to separate from, whose heart can I know?

It is the local, visible, timely faith, practice and order of some other groups that Baptists see reason to separate themselves.

For this same reason, Baptists continue to find reason to distiguish themselves from other Baptistic groups or churches.

None of this prevents the local, visible practice of any particular body according to the Grace that is given them to receive the body of revealed truth.

The error, even among Baptists, comes when we pretend to be able to judge the eternal position of others simply by their outward profession.

(Please note I am not in support of universalism; where there is no hunger none come to the table, where there is no thirst, none come to the fountain, I am speaking in accordance to Paul's words in 2 Tim. 2:19 as to what foundation is sure and eternal.)

May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas

 

Dallas -

I am not sure that I got all of that - but I think I get the essence of it.

My point is that everything from snake-handling-charismatic to missionary, to indepentant to southern to ... is all "Baptist" because they all call themselves by that name and they practice baptism by immersion.

I would be interested to know if anyone has come here attending a "baptist" church (a church that has that word in its name some place) and been refused by the monitors claiming that they are not "really" baptist.

IF so - what was the criteria? Even the BFM is not agreed to by all Baptist churches.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Dear Brother Bob,
As I have not been a moderator for very long, I cannot answer your question.

Further, it is a question I would think would be left to the decision of the webmaster. If it were to ever arise, he alone as owner of this board, would necessarily have to determine what is acceptable.

It is a valid question as some may claim the name Baptist but not really have Baptist distinctives.

These distinctives are historically founded, inmho, and not subject to continual change.

Most groups that depart from the baptists (Church of Christ for example) do so through beginning to teach error in one way or another and calling it a return to scripture.

The Baptist has never left scripture, there is no reason to bid his return.

May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas

Bro. Dallas

 

Dear Brother Bob,
Thanks for your post.

Brother Dallas

 

Dear Brother Lowery,
I do not disagree with your overall statement.

If you are serious about finding peace and rest in this world where that you may walk by the Spirit and not the flesh my only suggestion to you is to visit among the Primitive Baptists.

But, before you do, you must realize that some of what you state above can be construed in two differeing ways.

First, do you believe we are capable to obtain full holiness in this sinful body, the flesh I mean?

Second, do you truly believe we are empowered by Grace (Romans 1:5) for obedience to the faith? If so, you would certainly find peace among the Old School (Old Regular, Primitive Baptists).

INMHO.

I am learning of them and from them and they recognize the need to make the applications you seek after among Christians.

This does not mean that Christians of other groups do not possess the same desire, and I do not think Brother Lowery's post implies he thinks that all Baptists do not strive to manifest daily a walk according to the Life of Christ that is in them.

Bro. Dallas

 

But "St John's Baptist Church" WOULD be Baptist. My question is not about someone losing their rights to post on the board. My question is about someone being told they can not post on the Baptist ONLY section of the board - even though they belong to a church that calls itself a Baptist church.

(And this may never have happened in which case the answer is that the situation never came up).

I am just curious as to whether the board has a doctrinal standard that would sift through snake handling Baptist churches, full gospel baptist churches, missionary, southern, independant etc and claim that one is and another "is not" Baptist.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I agree.

Bro. Dallas

 

Dear Brother Bob Ryan,
The question as Dr. Bob posed it was identifying a Catholic Church, regardless of the name of St. John the Baptist Catholic Church.

As to the other question you ask you are correct, that would be brought before the webmaster and his decision would be final.

As you may well know, there are groups of believers who do attach 'baptist' to their name who are not baptist because of lack of baptist principles and practices.

Bro. Dallas

 

If you are the spiritual leader of a congregation, and you have no regard for doctrine, what are you teaching your people then? Are you a cult leader?

 

As one who must use the "Other Denominations" section due to the reason that I am not a Baptist(I did attend a Baptist church for over a year), I do see many Baptist's coming over to this "Other Denominations" section to post replies about "Other Denominations" beliefs, sometimes being critical! Should a Baptist come and jump into the discussion when it is a topic between a 7th Day Adventist and a Catholic to interject their doctrinal beliefs? I personally believe they should, yet I see the original posters frustration when "Other Denominations" are refused the opportunity to debate on Baptist issues with the threat of being banned! I would have to look at it this way: What would Jesus Do?

 

Dear Brother Mike,
Who is this addressed to?

Bro. Dallas

 

Dear eschatologist,
Thanks for this post. Anytime you believe any post is critical toward anyone such that it is a personal attack instead of a discussion of the issues between opposing doctrine, please use the post alert button and moderators will review the post.

In regards to your question, I would have to answer, We know what Jesus Did.


May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas

 

Reverend means a member of the clergy and a spiritual leader of the Christian Church. What does the title have to do with doctrine I fail to see your point.

Rev. Jerry D. Lowery </font>[/QUOTE]Rev Lowery

That is the problem Rev Lowery, you fail to see the point that doctrine does matter. That is what I have been driving at in this thread.

 

This is actually the point I have been trying to get to -- what is the rule that is used to determine if a Baptist church is in fact "really Baptist"??

For example, Seventh-day Baptist, Southern Baptist and (whichever group does the snake handling) are all very different groups all claiming to be "baptist". How do they compare to a group that would "claim" to be Baptist but in fact is not?

I "think" all in the first group are baptizing adults by immersion -- but what else do they need to have to be called Baptist?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I don't see "St John the Baptist Catholic Church" as showing that a Catholic Church wants to be considered Baptist.

But "St John's Baptist Church" would certainly qualify.

(I am not sure that this is what you are getting at when talking about the "name" vs the actual church. But I don't think the example above is one of a Catholic church trying to be Baptist in any way).

In Christ,

Bob