God's Ten Commandments in the "Baptist Confession of Faith" and other affirmations

[BobRyan]

So let me get this straight.
If I can provide a number of commonalities between the RCC and the Baptists,
(trinity, eternal torment of the wicked, resurrection of the living and the dead, coming of Christ, etc.), that makes the RCC a legitimate religion.

Not sure why this point is such a struggle here.

If a Catholic comes here and notes that both you and the RCC agree on the trinity then you can't claim "only the RCC knows about the Trinity".

So clearly - stating the obvious.

In the same way if the Catholic comes here and promotes free will - and "some baptists" trash free will like it came from the abyss and catholics are all wrong for believing in free will - and make up nonsense along the lines that only Catholics believe in free will - then that Catholic would be wise to point to the fact that a number of Baptist sources affirm free will.

That way all the "fiction" about 'only Catholics would dare to believe in Free will" -- goes into the nonsense pile.

again - stating the obvious.

The SDA religion is "already" a "legitimate religion" that is not what I was trying to debate about.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Not sure why this point is such a struggle here.

If a Catholic comes here and notes that both you and the RCC agree on the trinity then you can't claim "only the RCC knows about the Trinity".

So clearly - stating the obvious.

In the same way if the Catholic comes here and promotes free will - and "some baptists" trash free will like it came from the abyss and catholics are all wrong for believing in free will - and make up nonsense along the lines that only Catholics believe in free will - then that Catholic would be wise to point to the fact that a number of Baptist sources affirm free will.

That way all the "fiction" about 'only Catholics would dare to believe in Free will" -- goes into the nonsense pile.

again - stating the obvious.

The SDA religion is "already" a "legitimate religion" that is not what I was trying to debate about.

in Christ,

Bob

That seems to be what you are debating.
I consider the RCC to be a false religion. So do you. You have taken time and space and opportunity to expose the error of the RCC.

I also consider the SDA a false cult, as do many on this board. Whatever "legitimacy" you may think it has, there are plenty here that believe it has no legitimacy at all. It follows the teaching of a false prophetess.

So to me this thread is about you trying to prove to us that the SDA is somehow legitimate because you think you have enough in common with the Baptist Confession of Faith to make it so. You don't. We disagree. And we disagree on too many points to ever come to an agreement.

 

[BobRyan]

Here is the issue - pure and simple -- plain for all to see.

So let me get this straight.
If I can provide a number of commonalities between the RCC and the Baptists,
(trinity, eternal torment of the wicked, resurrection of the living and the dead, coming of Christ, etc.), that makes the RCC a legitimate religion.

Not sure why this point is such a struggle here.

If a Catholic comes here and notes that both you and the RCC agree on the trinity then you can't claim "only the RCC knows about the Trinity".

So clearly - stating the obvious.

In the same way if the Catholic comes here and promotes free will - and "some baptists" trash free will like it came from the abyss and catholics are all wrong for believing in free will - and make up nonsense along the lines that only Catholics believe in free will - then that Catholic would be wise to point to the fact that a number of Baptist sources affirm free will.

That way all the "fiction" about 'only Catholics would dare to believe in Free will" -- goes into the nonsense pile.

again - stating the obvious.

The SDA religion is "already" a "legitimate religion" that is not what I was trying to debate about.

Each time I "state the obvious" as pointed out above - some post comes along as if the obvious could somehow be made even simpler to state.

That seems to be what you are debating.
I consider the RCC to be a false religion. So do you.

I consider that they teach some error and so do you teach some error.

I don't go around calling them or you to have a non "legitimate religion".

I simply point to some points that are in doctrinal error.

You have taken time and space and opportunity to expose the error of the RCC.

Indeed - some of what they teach is not in harmony with the Bible.

And so what a great thing to be able to point to actual agreement on some points - as the OP and the first page of the thread illustrate.

You may belong to a small group that thinks that "calling everybody names is the solution to differences" and you have free will, you can make that choice if you wish. That is one of the ways the Baptist church growth slowed over time and the SDA church growth grew over time.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

I simply point to some points that are in doctrinal error.


Indeed - some of what they teach is not in harmony with the Bible.

And so what a great thing to be able to point to actual agreement on some points - as the OP and the first page of the thread illustrate.

You may belong to a small group that thinks that "calling everybody names is the solution to differences" and you have free will, you can make that choice if you wish. That is one of the ways the Baptist church growth slowed over time and the SDA church growth grew over time.

in Christ,

Bob

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

 

[Walter]

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Just curious, DHK, do you avoid Freewill Baptists?

 

[DHK]

Just curious, DHK, do you avoid Freewill Baptists?

I think I have been asked this question before; it sounds familiar.
First, I don't think I have ever run into any.
And then, I believe that Biblical fellowship, whether personal or ecclesiastical, should be with those who are of like faith and order. This is particularly true on an ecclesiastical level. Therefore it is highly unlikely that our IFB church would fellowship with other different types of Baptist churches that hold different views than we do.

 

[Walter]

I think I have been asked this question before; it sounds familiar.
First, I don't think I have ever run into any.
And then, I believe that Biblical fellowship, whether personal or ecclesiastical, should be with those who are of like faith and order. This is particularly true on an ecclesiastical level. Therefore it is highly unlikely that our IFB church would fellowship with other different types of Baptist churches that hold different views than we do.

I have never asked you before or have read your position before today. However, I believe you are being consistent. Most of the Baptists churches in the area I live in are fairly liberal. The American Baptists planted many churches in this area in the early 20th century and most have completely lost their theological moorings. Gay affirming, etc., etc. But then, so have most of the other mainline denoms in this area. We do have one IFB church locally but they preach 'easy believism'. Remembering your position on that I doubt you would fellowship with them either. This is not a criticism, as I said, I think you are being consistent.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

SDAism a la Bob Ryan is so typical and commonplace, but it is a pain in the pinkie ever so typical and commonplace.

 

[DHK]

I have never asked you before or have read your position before today. However, I believe you are being consistent. Most of the Baptists churches in the area I live in are fairly liberal. The American Baptists planted many churches in this area in the early 20th century and most have completely lost their theological moorings. Gay affirming, etc., etc. But then, so have most of the other mainline denoms in this area. We do have one IFB church locally but they preach 'easy believism'. Remembering your position on that I doubt you would fellowship with them either. This is not a criticism, as I said, I think you are being consistent.

Thanks Walter. I have never believed that the road of ecumenism was the right road to take.

 

[BobRyan]

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Therefore it is highly unlikely that our IFB church would fellowship with other different types of Baptist churches that hold different views than we do.

Interesting.

That list of Christians to avoid must be quite long.

 

[DHK]

Interesting.

That list of Christians to avoid must be quite long.

I don't make any lists of who to avoid.
I simply choose my friends carefully.

 

[BobRyan]

Just curious, DHK, do you avoid Freewill Baptists?

chooses his friends carefully as I am told.

 

[DHK]

chooses his friends carefully as I am told.

As I explained to Walter, I do not believe in ecumenism. We fellowship with those who believe like us, of like faith and order, and would never have in our pulpit someone who believed any different.
I don't imagine that the SDA would have a J.W. preaching to the SDA's

 

[BobRyan]

As I explained to Walter, I do not believe in ecumenism. We fellowship with those who believe like us, of like faith and order, and would never have in our pulpit someone who believed any different.
I don't imagine that the SDA would have a J.W. preaching to the SDA's

Is that how you view Free Will Baptists?

 

[BobRyan]

Just curious, DHK, do you avoid Freewill Baptists?

I am curious to know Walter's view of Spurgeon's edit of section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" including the Bible references that we find there.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

Is that how you view Free Will Baptists?

That question was asked and answered here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2185968&postcount=45

My personal views don't matter. The above is our position.

 

[BobRyan]

hey some good news and bad news.


Good news - I have been hammering another Christian message board on the OP topic here - with quotes of Spurgeon, section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- and soon the "Westminster Confession of Faith" etc as well as the many Bible texts they use and I find to support God's Ten Commandments in the NT.

Well that board has a guy looking for some help responding substantively to the Bible points and the other pro-sunday scholarship points being raised in favor of the Ten Commandments -- so guess what?? He found this board and began searching for help.

The problem is the board he is on currently will ban posters for mean spirited nothing-but-vitriol nothing but acrimony posts. So now he has a problem - he needs to find "substance" ... and he is someone that agrees with Spurgeon and Baptist Confession of Faith section 19.


Bad news:
he is pretty desperate - he needs something other than low-brown name calling.


Good news:
I have come here to ask that you guys have mercy on him and give him some actual substantive help in your posts so then name-calling "out".. on that board. Vitriol, ad hominem, acrimony "worthless" on that board - he can't use any of it. He needs actual logic ... details... something compelling in a debate.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[The Biblicist]

Good news - I have been hammering another Christian message board on the OP topic here - with quotes of Spurgeon, section 19 of the "Baptist Confession of Faith" -- and soon the "Westminster Confession of Faith" etc as well as the many Bible texts they use and I find to support God's Ten Commandments in the NT.

Bob, your problem is that you do not accept the full understanding and belief of those confessions in regard to the Ten Commandments, but you simply pick and choose what suits you while ignoring the overall context of their statements. I could do the same with the SDA confession of faith, but what would that prove? Nothing, except that I jerked a certain point out of the overall context of their fuller explanation of that subject.

Hence, all one has to do is read the fuller context concerning justification and regeneration in regard to the Ten Commandments in these confessions to easily see you are perverting what they believe just to suit your own purposes.

 

[Yeshua1]

So let me get this straight.
If I can provide a number of commonalities between the RCC and the Baptists,
(trinity, eternal torment of the wicked, resurrection of the living and the dead, coming of Christ, etc.), that makes the RCC a legitimate religion. They are not alone in their beliefs. This is your argument.

If you can provide a number of commonalities between the SDA and the Baptists (Sunday and Sabbath and law) that somehow makes the SDA a legitimate religion in your eyes. You are not alone in your beliefs, just like the RCC. This is your argument. You are trying to prove here that the SDA has some legitimacy not to be labeled as a cult. Is that what this thread is all about?

BOTH the Church of Rome and SDA though fail the all important question on just what is the Gospel of Jesus, and what is the real meaning of the Cross of His?

 

[BobRyan]

7 summary points --



1. That the Sabbath Commandment is first given to mankind in Gen 2:1-3
2. That all mankind was obligated by the TEN commandments in the OT and to this very day.
3. That the seventh day as the Sabbath was Saturday the seventh day of the week from Gen 2:1-3 until NT times - including at the cross.
4. That the Ten Commandments are the moral Law of God
5. That the moral law of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant
6. that the Ten Commandments as the moral law of God are in no way opposed to grace and the Gospel.
7. That the Sabbath commandment can rightly be BENT by man-made-tradition to point to week-day-1 after the cross.

I agree with 6 out of 7 as listed above - and yet many who post against God's TEN commandments object to all of the points listed above. And sometimes they will even go on to complain that so many of the points above are in agreement with my position and opposed to the war-against-the-Ten-Commandments position.

===============================

Short list of some other groups that affirm 6 or 7 of the points above -

"Baptist Confession of Faith"
"Westminster Confession of Faith"
C.H. Spurgeon
Andy Stanley
Matthew Henry
[FONT=&quot]Jamieson, Fausset, Brown
R.C Sproul
"D.L. Moody"
"Dies Domini"
--many others
[/FONT] __________________

Bob, your problem is that you do not accept the full understanding and belief of those confessions in regard to the Ten Commandments

So then just stating the obvious.

1. Every Christians discussion board on the planet includes the idea that not everone will agree on every single point. Rather they will agree on common ground and differ - where they differ. Obviously.

2. I have given 6 points in agreement and one where I differ. So far not one substantive argument against that fact.

3. And so far not one timid post sorta-in-agreement with the Baptist Confession of Faith section 19 willing to man-up and admit it outright. (At least when it comes to this thread).

Again the obvious.

So yes - in the OP I picked 6 of their 7 points stated agreement and then show where I differ on the 7th.

, but you simply pick and choose what suits you while ignoring the overall context of their statements.

And the proof of that factless accusation is???

As usual... awol... missing...

Are factless and false accusations -- absent all evidence, going to be the final retreat for those timid posts (timid posts that dance around almost affirming section 19???)