Baptists, and PSA

[ntchristian]

I've been reading threads in the Baptist-only section that I can't reply to, so I wanted to post this here. Frankly, I was astounded by what I read there. In some of the posts, there was the implication, or assertion, that a person who doesn't hold to PSA is not a Baptist. Really? And all this time I thought that the only ones who had a pope were the Roman Catholics. I didn't know that any Baptist could be a pope, telling another Baptist what he/she was not allowed to believe.

 

[Reformed1689]

I've been reading threads in the Baptist-only section that I can't reply to, so I wanted to post this here. Frankly, I was astounded by what I read there. In some of the posts, there was the implication, or assertion, that a person who doesn't hold to PSA is not a Baptist. Really? And all this time I thought that the only ones who had a pope were the Roman Catholics. I didn't know that any Baptist could be a pope, telling another Baptist what he/she was not allowed to believe.

The Bible preaches PSA, therfore if you don't adhere to PSA you are not biblical.

 

[Jerome]

Tom Ascol's Southern Baptist Founders website published this sermon by the Convention's first President W. B. Johnson espousing the Moral Government understanding of atonement:

Founders Ministries — We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear

More here:

Google Books • Baptist Identities

and here:

Google Books • Southern Baptist Seminary 1859-2009

"there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...a universal atonement based on a 'moral government' view of Christ's death....prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman." In drafting the Abstract of Principles, Basil Manley made sure to "accommodate the moral government view."

 

[ntchristian]

The Bible preaches PSA, therfore if you don't adhere to PSA you are not biblical.

So Christians of the first 15 centuries were not Biblical. It took John Calvin to see in the Bible what the early Christians did not see, and what no Christian for the next 1500 years saw. Okay, I get it now. Biblical Christianity began with Calvin.

 

[ntchristian]

Tom Ascol's Southern Baptist Founders website published this sermon by the Convention's first President W. B. Johnson espousing the Moral Government understanding of atonement:

Founders Ministries — We desire to encourage the return to and promulgation of the biblical gospel that our Southern Baptist forefathers held dear

More here:

Google Books • Baptist Identities

and here:

Google Books • Southern Baptist Seminary 1859-2009

"there was one other view prevailing among Southern Baptists...a universal atonement based on a 'moral government' view of Christ's death....prominent Southern Baptists held this view, William B. Johnson and Edwin Mims, Boyce's predecessor at Furman." In drafting the Abstract of Principles, Basil Manley made sure to "accommodate the moral government view."

Thanks very much for this. Guess those Southern Baptist founders were not "biblical", according to many in the modern day SBC.

 

[Reformed1689]

So Christians of the first 15 centuries were not Biblical. It took John Calvin to see in the Bible what the early Christians did not see, and what no Christian for the next 1500 years saw. Okay, I get it now. Biblical Christianity began with Calvin.

This is not a Calvinist issue, try again.

 

[Walter]

So Christians of the first 15 centuries were not Biblical. It took John Calvin to see in the Bible what the early Christians did not see, and what no Christian for the next 1500 years saw. Okay, I get it now. Biblical Christianity began with Calvin.

I have been learning so much from you. I really appreciate your contributions to the board. Even if they are sometimes at odds with my Catholic faith. Thanks for participating here.

 

[Reformed1689]

I have been learning so much from you. I really appreciate your contributions to the board. Even if they are sometimes at odds with my Catholic faith. Thanks for participating here.

What you "learned" from the post you quoted isn't even accurate.

 

[37818]

The Biblical Atonement is foundational to the Christian faith.
The first century New Testament notion of penal substitution can be found in Matthew 20:28, ". . . Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. . . ."

It was not until the early 20th century that this Biblical teaching came under attack.
Around 1919 a Presbyterian minister the Rev. David Smith, D. D. wrote, The Atonement in the Light of History and the Modern Spirit.

This is the eariliest work where the Penal Substitution "Theory" was brought under attack as the Forensic Theory.

In 1956 Methodist Vicent Taylor wrote, The Cross of Christ.

In 1958 Gustaf Aulen introduced Christus Victor.

 

[canadyjd]

So Christians of the first 15 centuries were not Biblical. It took John Calvin to see in the Bible what the early Christians did not see, and what no Christian for the next 1500 years saw. Okay, I get it now. Biblical Christianity began with Calvin.

It is simply untrue that PSA wasn’t taught before John Calvin.

Most reformed folks would tell you PSA was taught by Jesus and His disciples, although the “phrase” was not used it was certainly taught.

I agree with you, however, that the comments in these debate threads can be much too hostile.

peace to you

 

[Campion]

Who or what then gets to decide what is or is not the Baptist faith?

 

[canadyjd]

Who or what then gets to decide what is or is not the Baptist faith?

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of Baptist denominations. They generally adhere to similar doctrine but each has certain distinctions.

In the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) the churches are organized into voluntary associations at the county, state and National levels.

The national Convention publishes a “Baptist Faith and Message”, approved by delegates from local churches that expresses beliefs. The BF&M is not binding for membership, though most churches adopt it.

These churches “cooperate” with funding for certain programs, primarily around missions, at the local, state, and national levels.

Each church is autonomous. They approve leaders within the congregation, make budgets, decide missions and other community programs, call pastors etc.

If a specific church adopts positions that are anti-biblical, the various organizations at the local, state, and/or national levels cam vote to disfellowship with that church; essentially remove them from their association.

Hope that helps

peace to you

 

[Campion]

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of Baptist denominations. They generally adhere to similar doctrine but each has certain distinctions.

In the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) the churches are organized into voluntary associations at the county, state and National levels.

The national Convention publishes a “Baptist Faith and Message”, approved by delegates from local churches that expresses beliefs. The BF&M is not binding for membership, though most churches adopt it.

These churches “cooperate” with funding for certain programs, primarily around missions, at the local, state, and national levels.

Each church is autonomous. They approve leaders within the congregation, make budgets, decide missions and other community programs, call pastors etc.

If a specific church adopts positions that are anti-biblical, the various organizations at the local, state, and/or national levels cam vote to disfellowship with that church; essentially remove them from their association.

Hope that helps

peace to you

Thanks so much for your reply and the info.

How do I know which one was founded by Christ and hence the authentic Baptist denomination? Is there one that can authoritatively declare what is or is not the real and authentic Baptist faith?

 

[canadyjd]

Thanks so much for your reply and the info.

How do I know which one was founded by Christ and hence the authentic Baptist denomination? Is there one that can authoritatively declare what is or is not the real and authentic Baptist faith?

There are certain churches called “Landmark Baptists” that claim unbroken existence back to John the Baptist. Their claims are suspect, at best, and fabrication at worst.

It is similar to the Catholics claiming Peter was the first Pope, though there is no scriptural support for that position.

John the Baptist was a Jewish priest and should really be referred to John the Baptizer because the use of Baptist doesn’t mean he was a “Baptist” the way we currently understand that word.

The “Baptist faith” is not distinctive from the Christian faith. I have heard it said we are Christians by the grace of God and call ourselves “Baptist” by choice.

All churches that follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and His disciples are “authentic churches”.

I understand many believe there must be direct apostolic succession for a church to be “valid”. I don’t believe that teaching to be biblical.

peace to you

 

[Squire Robertsson]

To my way of thinking, Baptist denotes a philosophy, not a denomination.

 

[canadyjd]

To my way of thinking, Baptist denotes a philosophy, not a denomination.

I’ll have to think about that. It could be both?

peace to you

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I’ll have to think about that. It could be both?

peace to you

In my mind, "denomination" would mean there is some central "authority". Such is not true of Baptists, we are for the most part "bound together by a rope of sand" as one old saint put it.

 

[DaveXR650]

I've been reading threads in the Baptist-only section that I can't reply to, so I wanted to post this here. Frankly, I was astounded by what I read there. In some of the posts, there was the implication, or assertion, that a person who doesn't hold to PSA is not a Baptist. Really? And all this time I thought that the only ones who had a pope were the Roman Catholics. I didn't know that any Baptist could be a pope, telling another Baptist what he/she was not allowed to believe.

@ntchristian . I think the problem was that the modern "theories" of the atonement that modernists came up with were specifically designed to eliminate the need for Jesus to die on the cross. When the discussions started in the other forums I found that the two main guys arguing against PSA were completely confusing and vague as to what they did believe about the atonement and I felt they were deliberately being controversial. But after a lot of back and forth I became satisfied that while they seemed unable to articulate what they believed they were NOT trying to eliminate the need for Jesus to die on the cross and since at that point there was so much vitriol going on I bowed out.

I'd recommend going back and reading the W.B.Johnson sermon that @Jerome posted. That sermon clearly teaches PSA. One paragraph in particular starts with "On Christ who is mighty to save, Jehovah laid help for our ruined race." That paragraph goes on to explain the "uplifted stroke of justice ready to fall on our heads", and how Jesus was the propitiation for our sins. What that sermon does also is point out that the atonement was developed by God for His glory and planned out of love for us. I think sometimes due to the general perceived harshness of the times of the Puritans there is a false emphasis on an out of control wrath of God that Jesus fortunately stepped in and placated. That is not the way the Reformers taught PSA. But I'll leave it for you to judge whether an "uplifted stroke of justice ready to fall on our heads" has anything to do with wrath. I think it does.