Featured Confessions and creeds

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

Much of the time, perception indicates that labels are indeed tossed to and fro with pejorative intentions.

 

Tony ..... Catechism scares me! I was raised RC & their concept of it is enough to have me diving for cover. I also believe that the gospel that Particular Baptists believe is different than what the Free Will Baptists teach so how can you plug just one Catechism?

 

like.......er, ahhhh never mind...... but they were goooood! :laugh:

 

"Formal religion is a deadly foe to vital godliness. If you teach a catechism, or if you teach a form of prayer to your little ones, let it be all true; and, as far as possible never put into a child’s mouth a word which the child cannot truly say from his heart." —Charles Spurgeon, "The Child Samuel's Prayer"

 

Jerome,
Since you like Spurgeon so much:wavey:

 

Because some who have a different gospel attempt to mimic the true teaching, should not deter you from truth.This is by far the best one I have found as it is up to date and draws from the best of all the other ones.
I also was raised RC.....but when God saves a person they leave the false behind.

 

A catechism is at it's basis simply a method of teaching- like a primer. As with primers, there are good ones and bad ones. The method is not the problem with the bad ones, it is the content (or lack thereof).

 

Exactly. It's a tool that Sunday School teachers can use. We don't have a problem with teachers. Some use lectures. Some favor Q & A with learner participation.

I have in my files a booklet called A Baptist Catechism, written a hundred years ago. It lays out Baptist doctrine and practice in a Q & A form.

The objective is to teach Biblical truth as we understand it. We shouldn't fear such methods of teachiing.

 

Im not denying that Im kinda sick of Catechism....the Romans shoved it down my throat & made me memorize a great deal of it......but to no avail. I was always a sinner. Now your suggesting that I pick it up again. This is akin to taking a double dose of Castor oil...LOL.

I was quite content with 1689 as a frame of reference & also a tool to learn from. And honestly Ive not seen any Baptist church around me use one. I will call Trinity on Tuesday and ask what they recommend. Thanks for the suggestion.

 

Yes call them. maybe some of the families from there that live close to you.
Some travel from Denville and other locations, maybe there are some who are close to you and can fellowship with you and your family.:thumbsup:

Also...I do recommend this book, however there are many good resources available online.Whatever helps you and your family grow in grace and knowledge is good. We are called to worship and serve in the kingdom.
I find that if I cannot improve upon what is written than I would rather post and quote from those who are more gifted than just go on and on about my weak thoughts!

 

And Calvin is an evil way of saying it, like the pattern in which he lead his life.

 

This thread more than any other in seven years is a landmark for why I am a Baptist and not a Presbyterian. Creeds and confessions are the focal point. It is one thing for a local Baptist church to come up with a Constitution or bylaws that bind a congregation together in a few simple statements that are Scriptural, but quite another for a creed or confession written by a man to transcend denominations and be repeated as part of the Sunday worship every Sunday, either parroted or chanted. The time spent is meaningless. As mentioned earlier, from the Apostles Creed, "I believe in the communion of saints." That is not a belief, it is a fact. "I believe in the holy catholic church." This does not refer to the RCC, but to what we call the universal church, a useless entity on this earth. God's mission is carried out by the local church. Take any creed written by man, that is chanted Sunday after Sunday, and it becomes quite obvious ten minutes of every service is wasted.

I am a Baptist and not a Presbyterian because infant baptism has no validity. The last few verses of Matthew make this quite clear, and requires no further explanation.

I am a Baptist and not a Presbyterian because Scripture does not teach that a waiting period, communicant's class, indocrination, a signed copy of a contract, or other such man made device have anything to do with joining a church. "They were received the same day," Luke says. And quite frankly, I want the congregation voting on my worthiness to join a church, not a collection of white, elderly men who own businesses or are doctors and lawyers deciding whether or not I fit in.

I am a Baptist and not a Presbyterian because I refuse to serve in a church that has a hierarchy. No presbyery, group of bishops, cardinals, or whatever is going to tell the church I serve in who we can call as pastor, what we do with our budget, how we manage our buildings, or what ministires we support. That is up to the local church. Levels of government above the local church are not needed, and the salaries people get paid at those levels produce nothing.

I am a Baptist and not a Presbyterian because I refuse to serve in a church that is govened by a collection of elders that were elected on the basis of social status instead of spiritual maturity. Someone like this is going to decide who is to be a member????

Most of all, I am a Baptist because it lets the Holy Spirit lead me and not church doctrine. If all of you theological geniuses on this board were Presbyterians, there would be no Calvinism debates.

If these issues spark your imagination, no doubt there is a Presbyterian church down the street for you to join.

 

There was apostles and revelatory gifts at that time....I do not think you can rule out all imput by men.

lets say several men from BB show up in lone oak,they want to join the church and teach as they try to in here.What are you going to use to filter out the error and confusion?----a few simple statements????

lead you how? lead you to what? He has not lead other men and teachers in church history?

 

Well I do not use terms, to describe a view point, that are named after men.

 

Think that you are developing a'Biblical theology!"

Would say that all systems, regardless Cal/Arm?Dispy?Covt have some inherit flaws in them , as though the bible is true, we are not Apostolic in having full and correct knowledge regarding them!

 

What you've done, Brother Tom, inadvertently I'm sure, is give many folks a free pass to criticize the theology of those who have the courage to claim one while they themselves sit back in the safety of ambiguity.

They can criticize you but they have no systematized theology that you can in turn criticize.

It is like a few years ago I had no college team that I claimed. My buddies were all Alabama fans. Every game I criticized Alabama but they could not compare their team to mine because I claimed none.

It gave me an unfair advantage.

It was also cowardly.

If you HAVE no systematic theology you have ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS criticizing anyone else's.

 

I certainly don't want anyone to think I am ambiguous about my theology. I am actually aiming toward clarity in describing it. The term DoG is pretty broad, of course, but it also does not carry with it the baggage that the use of Calvinism does. I embrace TULIP, but little else associated with Presbyterian Calvinism. So, I am a Baptist DoG. Both terms require some fleshing out to explain, but DoGl is easier for me.

 

I am not talking about you, though, Brother Tom. You said you were one of the first ones to start identifying people as "non-cals".

What I am saying is that by doing this you have enabled them to feel perfectly okay with criticizing other theologies even though they have no theology themselves.

These people can believe on one hand that man is not born a sinner and at the same time believe that man needs to be saved.

They can believe that God is in complete control of everything and at the same time say that every bad thing that happens happened outside of his control.

They believe that Jesus paid in full for every sin every man has ever committed on one hand while saying that millions go to hell because their sins have not been washed away.

They believe that God always knew everything that would ever happen on one hand while saying that he never intended for anything bad to ever happen on the other (as if he could not have anticipated that this would happen in such a world that he knew he would create).

They believe in free will saying that people choose to do what they do without any reason whatsoever. There is no REASON why men choose what they choose- they just choose.


Do you see the problem.

The Calvinist and the Arminian try to tackle these issues biblically and the way they work them out is open to criticism.

But the "non-cal" can criticize them both and be totally immune to any criticism himself because he has not worked out the difficulties of his "system" of beliefs.
He is so pompous that he does not even think he HAS to work them out. All he does is embrace insane contradictions and say that the Calvinist and Arminian are followers of men not followers of God and the Bible.

You allow them this arrogance when you label them "non-cals".

You ought to demand that they study these things out and systematize them BEFORE they get to criticize people who've had the integrity and courage to do so.