Baptists are Not Protestants.

[Hutch]

We all backslide to some degree, that's when God gives us a little spanking to get us back in line.

But if we begin to place our faith in something else other than the finished work of Christ, as many of the Jews did by abandoning Christ and going back to Temple worship (the Law) then our salvation is forfeited. We must keep the faith in Christ to the end, period!

Heb. 3:14
"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;"

Notice that we are partakers of Christ IF we keep our faith to the end.

This verse speaks of service, not salvation. Look at the context. We are made partakers in the Kingdom if we remain faithful in our service to Christ.
If a believer can possibly lose their salvation, than it would contradict the promise Christ gave of the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The H.S. would have to leave the believer if he ever lost his salvation. That would not be permanent.

 

[Hutch]

It is extreme unfortunate that you allowed your library to be so severely biased! My library very carefully reflects not what I personally believe, but an extremely wide spectrum of Jewish and Christian theological thought expressed by the top scholars representing those thoughts—whether I agree with them or not. Indeed, I have here in my study 273 commentaries on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans including every exegetical commentary on the Greek text of Romans that has ever been published in English by a publishing house or university.

The doctrine of conditional security was very widely taught throughout the early Christian world by many, and it was NEVER taught defensively because there was no other view to oppose. Calvinists are very much aware of this and they have very diligently searched the now available massive databases using the very best search tools and they have come up emptied handed. A few of them, however, have published translated quotes to the contrary out of context, but those same quotes have been published in context in the original Greek and Latin proving that the Calvinists were either careless or deliberately dishonest.

I am aware that not all believers in the doctrine of eternal security are Calvinists, but it is the Calvinists who have made, by far, the most effort to defend it in view of the history of the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments.

I do have some books on other religions. I taught Intro to World Religions in a community college for 10 years. My commentaries are from men that hold to the literal, historical-grammatical approach to Scripture interpretation. My approach to studying God's Word has always been to know His Word first and foremost, then when a false doctrine comes along, I would be able to spot it because I've already invested time in examining the Truth. And my study will be lifelong.

We can agree to disagree but I feel your interpretation is not correct, just as you feel mine is not correct. The same with our interpretations of Church History.

 

[Charlie24]

This verse speaks of service, not salvation. Look at the context. We are made partakers in the Kingdom if we remain faithful in our service to Christ.
If a believer can possibly lose their salvation, than it would contradict the promise Christ gave of the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The H.S. would have to leave the believer if he ever lost his salvation. That would not be permanent.

The Hebrew people in Hebrews 3 who God said, vs. 18-19, they shall not enter into my rest, are the same ones who while still in Egypt covered their doorposts with blood to save them from the angel of death. God said, when I see the Blood, I will pass over you.

That Blood represented faith in the future shed Blood of Christ and the Hebrews knew it and believed.

While in the wilderness they rebelled against God, turned to idols and lost that faith in the Blood of Christ.

They went to their graves lost and without God, He refused them entrance based on lost faith. That's what Hebrews 3 is about!

 

[Charlie24]

The Hebrew people in Hebrews 3 who God said, vs. 18-19, they shall not enter into my rest, are the same ones who while still in Egypt covered their doorposts with blood to save them from the angel of death. God said, when I see the Blood, I will pass over you.

That Blood represented faith in the future shed Blood of Christ and the Hebrews knew it and believed.

While in the wilderness they rebelled against God, turned to idols and lost that faith in the Blood of Christ.

They went to their graves lost and without God, He refused them entrance based on lost faith. That's what Hebrews 3 is about!

This is why the author of Hebrews said to these Ist century Hebrew believers.

Heb. 3:12
"Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God."

Notice he addresses them as "Brethren," believers, and warns them against "departing from the living God" as their ancestors did in the wilderness.

 

[JonC]

I think the claim "Baptists are not Protestants" is wrong for a couple of reasons:

1. During the Reformation baptistic churches did exist, and they joined the movement opposing the Roman Catholic Church. These groups were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church. They were disappointed in that Reformed churches maintained much of Roman Catholic dogmatic beliefs (some reformed, others simply carried over), but they were not silent during the Protestant movement.

2. Baptist churches today typically hold doctrine that is an amalgamation of Reformed doctrine and general doctrine held by Anabaptist sects, but Baotist churches are not identical to either.

Believers baptism and althe separation of church and state, for example, existed in Anabaptist churches. Penal Substitution Theory, eschatolological structures, and the doctrine of "original sin" were inherited from Reforned churches.

It is fair to call Baptists "Protestant".

 

[Hutch]

The Hebrew people in Hebrews 3 who God said, vs. 18-19, they shall not enter into my rest, are the same ones who while still in Egypt covered their doorposts with blood to save them from the angel of death. God said, when I see the Blood, I will pass over you.

That Blood represented faith in the future shed Blood of Christ and the Hebrews knew it and believed.

While in the wilderness they rebelled against God, turned to idols and lost that faith in the Blood of Christ.

They went to their graves lost and without God, He refused them entrance based on lost faith. That's what Hebrews 3 is about!

I don't believe a person (Old or New Testament) "loses their faith" when they disobey God. What the Israelites lost was the blessings of entering the Promised Land they would have received if they were obedient to God.

 

[Charlie24]

I don't believe a person (Old or New Testament) "loses their faith" when they disobey God. What the Israelites lost was the blessings of entering the Promised Land they would have received if they were obedient to God.

Ok, that's fine. We will believe what we see and nothing more, that's fair.

Let me show one other thing and I'll leave you to your beliefs.

From the same author, Hebrews 6:4-6

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

Do you know why it's impossible for those who are saved and go back on Christ, that they can't come back?

This is the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit who dwelled in these believers was rejected and put to shame through losing faith in the shed Blood of Christ. They are doomed to Hell with no hope.

They have openly put Christ to shame, along with the Holy Spirit.

 

[Craigbythesea]

I do have some books on other religions. I taught Intro to World Religions in a community college for 10 years. My commentaries are from men that hold to the literal, historical-grammatical approach to Scripture interpretation. My approach to studying God's Word has always been to know His Word first and foremost, then when a false doctrine comes along, I would be able to spot it because I've already invested time in examining the Truth. And my study will be lifelong.

We can agree to disagree but I feel your interpretation is not correct, just as you feel mine is not correct. The same with our interpretations of Church History.

I do not “feel” that my interpretation of the scriptures relative to the doctrine of salvation is correct—I know from the abundance of objective facts that my interpretation of the scriptures relative to the doctrine of salvation is correct. I do not “feel” that my interpretation of church history is correct—I have the writings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers right here in my study. A dominant theme in those writings concerns the total apostasy of Christians and how the Church should deal with the apostates. Either you are willfully and deliberately posting falsehoods or you have not bothered to read for yourself the writing of Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers and you are believing some dingbat that has not read them. If you are unable to afford to purchase the writing of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers in bound volumes, they can be read online on line along with indexes to them.

This issue is of great importance because we know from the ancient writings themselves that the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers had no knowledge of a doctrine of eternal security even though they read the same Bible that we do today. If the doctrine is taught in the Bible, it necessarily follows that the writers of the Bible had such ridiculously poor writing skills that no one was able to understand the doctrine of salvation until the 16th century, and that, therefore, the Bible is not the word of God but the writings of some hopeless ding-a-lings.

There is, of course, much more evidence from the history of the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments that the concept of the eternal security of the believer was first arrived at through deductive logic based on a false 16th century premise rather than through biblical exegesis. And, of course, there are scores of passages in the Bible that teach the conditional security of the believer.

 

[37818]

I think the claim "Baptists are not Protestants" is wrong for a couple of reasons:

1. During the Reformation baptistic churches did exist, and they joined the movement opposing the Roman Catholic Church. These groups were never a part of the Roman Catholic Church. They were disappointed in that Reformed churches maintained much of Roman Catholic dogmatic beliefs (some reformed, others simply carried over), but they were not silent during the Protestant movement.

2. Baptist churches today typically hold doctrine that is an amalgamation of Reformed doctrine and general doctrine held by Anabaptist sects, but Baotist churches are not identical to either.

Believers baptism and althe separation of church and state, for example, existed in Anabaptist churches. Penal Substitution Theory, eschatolological structures, and the doctrine of "original sin" were inherited from Reforned churches.

It is fair to call Baptists "Protestant".

* Fact, churches called Baptist are post Protestant reformation.

* Fact, Baptists who claim not to be Protestant lay claim to the teachings of the New Testament documents being the faith and practice of the first century churches.

 

[Craigbythesea]

If a believer can possibly lose their salvation, than it would contradict the promise Christ gave of the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The H.S. would have to leave the believer if he ever lost his salvation. That would not be permanent.

There is no such promise in the Bible! Perhaps you are thinking of something that you read years ago but do not correctly remember it:

John 14:15. “If you love me, you will keep {Other ancient authorities read [me, keep]} my commandments.
16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, {Or [Helper]} to be with you forever.
17. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in {Or [among]} you.
18. “I will not leave you orphaned; I am coming to you.
19. In a little while the world will no longer see me, but you will see me; because I live, you also will live.
20. On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
21. They who have my commandments and keep them are those who love me; and those who love me will be loved by my Father, and I will love them and reveal myself to them.”

 

[JonC]

* Fact, churches called Baptist are post Protestant reformation.

* Fact, Baptists who claim not to be Protestant lay claim to the teachings of the New Testament documents being the faith and practice of the first century churches.

I agree. There were churches we would consider Baptist churches pre-Reformatiom, but these would not consider Baptist churches are part of their faith.

Our Baptist churches are a product of Anapaptist theology (the "Radical reformers") and Reformed theology (especially Calvin). Baptist churches who deny those typically do so because they fail to recognize the assumptions they adopt in their interpretations of Scripture.

 

[Hutch]

16. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, {Or [Helper]} to be with you forever.

16. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter (Holy Spirit), that he may abide with you forever;

 

[Hutch]

I do not “feel” that my interpretation of the scriptures relative to the doctrine of salvation is correct—I know from the abundance of objective facts that my interpretation of the scriptures relative to the doctrine of salvation is correct. I do not “feel” that my interpretation of church history is correct—I have the writings of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers right here in my study. A dominant theme in those writings concerns the total apostasy of Christians and how the Church should deal with the apostates. Either you are willfully and deliberately posting falsehoods or you have not bothered to read for yourself the writing of Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers and you are believing some dingbat that has not read them. If you are unable to afford to purchase the writing of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers in bound volumes, they can be read online on line along with indexes to them.

This issue is of great importance because we know from the ancient writings themselves that the Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and Post-Nicene Church Fathers had no knowledge of a doctrine of eternal security even though they read the same Bible that we do today. If the doctrine is taught in the Bible, it necessarily follows that the writers of the Bible had such ridiculously poor writing skills that no one was able to understand the doctrine of salvation until the 16th century, and that, therefore, the Bible is not the word of God but the writings of some hopeless ding-a-lings.

There is, of course, much more evidence from the history of the interpretation of the Old and New Testaments that the concept of the eternal security of the believer was first arrived at through deductive logic based on a false 16th century premise rather than through biblical exegesis. And, of course, there are scores of passages in the Bible that teach the conditional security of the believer.

You've presented your side; I've given my side.
“Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.”

 

[Hutch]

Ok, that's fine. We will believe what we see and nothing more, that's fair.

Let me show one other thing and I'll leave you to your beliefs.

From the same author, Hebrews 6:4-6

"For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame."

Do you know why it's impossible for those who are saved and go back on Christ, that they can't come back?

This is the unforgivable sin, blasphemy against the Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit who dwelled in these believers was rejected and put to shame through losing faith in the shed Blood of Christ. They are doomed to Hell with no hope.

They have openly put Christ to shame, along with the Holy Spirit.

These were not true believers, but false believers. The Holy Spirit never indwelt them.

 

[Charlie24]

These were not true believers, but false believers. The Holy Spirit never indwelt them.

uhhhh, "and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit?"

What does it mean to be a partaker of the Holy Spirit?

 

[37818]

uhhhh, "and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit?"

Compare Acts 7:51, Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Also, Hebrews 10:29, Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

 

[Charlie24]

Compare Acts 7:51, Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

Also, Hebrews 10:29, Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

In Heb. 10:28, the author of Heb. points out that under the Law of Moses there must be 2-3 witnesses before carrying out the punishment of a capitol crime, death.

Then he says, vs 29, " Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

Whereas the the death penalty under the Law of Moses was a physical death, the death the author is speaking of here is a spiritual death, in turning back on Christ and "counting the the Blood of the Covenant he was sanctified by (born-again) and unholy thing and made a mockery of the Holy Spirit. Which is the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, not to be forgiven in this world nor the one to come.

 

[Charlie24]

In Heb. 10:28, the author of Heb. points out that under the Law of Moses there must be 2-3 witnesses before carrying out the punishment of a capitol crime, death.

Then he says, vs 29, " Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?"

Whereas the the death penalty under the Law of Moses was a physical death, the death the author is speaking of here is a spiritual death, in turning back on Christ and "counting the the Blood of the Covenant he was sanctified by (born-again) and unholy thing and made a mockery of the Holy Spirit. Which is the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, not to be forgiven in this world nor the one to come.

In other words, God's capitol crime that deserves spiritual death, eternal separation from Him, is turning back on Christ.

 

[Charlie24]

In other words, God's capitol crime that deserves spiritual death, eternal separation from Him, is turning back on Christ.

It would have been better for them if they had not accepted Christ, than to have accepted Him and then turn away in unbelief!

The "sorer punishment" the author is speaking of is a "sorer punishment" than that of physical death under the Law of Moses.

That "sorer punishment" is spiritual death!

 

[Craigbythesea]

These were not true believers, but false believers. The Holy Spirit never indwelt them.

David L Allen, Dean of the school of theology and Professor of preaching and director of the Center of Biblical Preaching at Southwestern Baptist Seminary, writes,

Grudem’s treatment of Heb. 6:4-6 illustrates the tendentious nature of much of the Calvinistic exegesis of this passage.

The sheer force of the descriptive phrases militates against such an interpretation [that unsaved persons are being spoken of]. How can it be conceived that such descriptive phrases as enlightenment, experience of the heavenly gift of salvation, full sharing in the Holy Spirit, sharing in the Word of God and the powers of the coming age, do not have believers as their referent. Each of these statements finds their counterparts scattered throughout the New Testament, and when used in the same context as here, they refer to those who are genuine believers. Grudem’s affirmation that the group’s outward affiliation with the church made it impossible to determine their status until they “fell away” is a fact not in dispute. No matter one’s theological position on this passage, all would affirm such a statement. Unsaved people can and do participate in the church; the wheat and the tares grow together. At issue is whether unsaved people can be so described by an author who thinks or knows them to be unsaved. The issue of determining their status is not the point for the author. By the descriptive language he chooses, he indicates their status as believers. Had the author wanted to convey their status as unbelievers, he could have done so. There is no direct statement that those described in Heb. 6:4-6 were unbelievers. If the author is referring to unsaved people, this is the only place in the New Testament where such language can be said to be used in this fashion.

Allen, David L. Hebrews, Volume 35 of the New American Commentary. Nashville: B & H Publishing Group, 2010. p.353.