-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How Important is it To Know Non baptist theologies/beliefs?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
I certainly do, and a good handbook on denominations is a decent place to start. If you don't understand the theology of the denominations then you run a risk of misrepresenting their theology in discussion, you also need to be able to provide a defense. You can stick to the 'top tier' denominations though, you'll never cover them all and most seem to share doctrine.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
Do you place a premium on knowing what the rest of the Body believe/teach/practice, or is it 'just baptist baby!"
We should be aware of the doctrine of other groups, particularly those whose doctrine is unscriptural or heretical. Most important we should be well versed in our own doctrine. I am afraid there are many Baptists who are not only ignorant of the Bible but ignorant of Baptist doctrine. Much of the problem is that preachers do everything but preach expository sermons. Dr. Albert Mohler has a book out on this, He is not Silent.
Of course Baptist doctrine has changed markedly since the mid 19th century. Thomas Nettles has written an excellent book [recently updated] in which he discuses Baptist history, the decline in doctrinal integrity, and the doctrines of Grace: By His grace and for His Glory.
Tom Butler
New Member
There's been a good book out there for several years that's worth getting.
It's called Handbook of Denominations by Frank Mead.
It's called Handbook of Denominations by Frank Mead.
Tom Butler
New Member
We ought to be careful in describing other denominations as part of the Body of Christ. Just how much heresy can we tolerate and still call them part of the Body?
Of course, my perspective is from a local church view, since that's the only Body of Christ there is.
This is not to say there are not true believers in other denominations. It's just that those denominations do not qualify as New Testament churches. And if there are true believers, it is despite the teachings of those groups.
Of course, my perspective is from a local church view, since that's the only Body of Christ there is.
This is not to say there are not true believers in other denominations. It's just that those denominations do not qualify as New Testament churches. And if there are true believers, it is despite the teachings of those groups.
Last edited by a moderator:
Tom Butler
New Member
It is a good idea to know what other groups teach. How can you defend the faith if you don't know what you're defending against?
Do you place a premium on knowing what the rest of the Body believe/teach/practice, or is it 'just baptist baby!"
We should learn theology and theological beliefs of others. This is a part of being a theologian.
We ought to be careful in describing other denominations as part of the Body of Christ. Just how much heresy can we tolerate and still call them part of the Body?
Of course, my perspective is from a local church view, since that's the only Body of Christ there is.
This is not to say there are not true believers in other denominations. It's just that those denominations do not qualify as New Testament churches. And if there are true believers, it is despite the teachings of those groups.
There are a wide vasiety of traditions/practices/doctrines within the Church...
Body of Church compromised of all local assemblies/churches regardless of their label IF they adhere to essentials/cores of the faith once and for all deliveredto the saints!
Such as Cross, sabved by grace/faith alone
Bible
second Coming
water baptism etc!
As long as have core taught/preached, are NT church , wether if demonination or not setting!
We should learn theology and theological beliefs of others. This is a part of being a theologian.
yes, has NONE of us here have 'all" or "fully correct" theologies derived from the Bible, so good to interactwith different traditions to see their basis of their doctrinal beliefs!
Even the Augustines/calvins etc did not operate in a biblical vacuum, as they knew and interacted with others theologies of time!
Yes because wolves in sheep clothing have crepted inDo you place a premium on knowing what the rest of the Body believe/teach/practice, or is it 'just baptist baby!"
We do need to know what and who we are up against when trying to fellowship with someone from a different doctrine. Yet we have to be very careful in coming to know their beliefs. This is something only those with a strong conviction of the truth should pursue.
I myself almost became a Calvinist. What saved me from it was there trust in what men have said is true, rather than God.
MB
Yes because wolves in sheep clothing have crepted in
We do need to know what and who we are up against when trying to fellowship with someone from a different doctrine. Yet we have to be very careful in coming to know their beliefs. This is something only those with a strong conviction of the truth should pursue.
I myself almost became a Calvinist. What saved me from it was there trust in what men have said is true, rather than God.
MB
that is though what EVERY theological system would work from, as men would be interpreting the Bible... cals/Arms/Others "word of men"
Would say Calvinism as regards to Sotierology best model from the Bible....
Tom Butler
New Member
There are a wide vasiety of traditions/practices/doctrines within the Church...
Body of Church compromised of all local assemblies/churches regardless of their label IF they adhere to essentials/cores of the faith once and for all deliveredto the saints!
Such as Cross, sabved by grace/faith alone
Bible
second Coming
water baptism etc!
As long as have core taught/preached, are NT church , wether if demonination or not setting!
Okay, what denominations do you believe do NOT adhere to your criteria, thus are not true New Testament churches?
Let's involve other BB members here.
What are your criteria for being a New Testament Church?
Which faith groups fail your test?
Last edited by a moderator:
You must understand I do not claim to be a Bible interpreter. I don't read it and then tell myself what it means. I always ask for guidance first and as I read allow God to tell my heart what it means. There is a huge difference..that is though what EVERY theological system would work from, as men would be interpreting the Bible... cals/Arms/Others "word of men"
Would say Calvinism as regards to Sotierology best model from the Bible....
Calvinism; at least the most of it I've read from Calvinst on this board. Is not from scripture and therefore cannot be any model from scripture at all.
There is simply none of the tulip taken from scripture. When scripture is used to try to support the tulip it is always taken out of context and emblished upon by the thoughts of men. Calvinism in my opinion is what men make of it. It is the product of interpretation with out real consideration of what God has said. In short, Calvinism is the sum of the thoughts of men.
MB
We should learn theology and theological beliefs of others. This is a part of being a theologian.
Well said.
I would add that the Church should be full of theologians. Unfortunately, most Christians aren't since we don't sing good hymns and we teach superficially.
Seriously. It's been estimated that an overwhelming amount of the theology a Christian knows comes from what we sing. If that's the case, no wonder why we're as theologically deep as a thimble in a lot of cases.
Okay, what denominations do you believe do NOT adhere to your criteria, thus are not true New Testament churches?
Let's involve other BB members here.
What are your criteria for being a New Testament Church?
Which faith groups fail your test?
a church/demonination that denies the true Gospel message, faith alone/Grace alone!
The Rcc
church of England liberal wing
presby church liberal wing
united methodist liberal wing
church of Christ add water baptism as requirement to be saved
Oneness church 'jesus Only"
various word of faith/prosperity/postive thinking etc
just a partial list!
Let me muddy the water.
What is Baptist "theology"?
We have no official over arching position on Soteriology or Eschatology. So to fully understand "baptist" theology is to understand both the Doctrines of Grace and John Wesley, Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, and even Amillenialism. Can somebody give me a crisp definition of Amillenial Eschatology? Just kidding.
We can be General and Particular and still be Baptist.
Our best attribute is a reliance on the authority of Scripture. Our worst is our insistence on theological exclusivity on positions that are just not the big thing.
We argue over we should raise hands or not, whether the wine at the Last Supper was alcoholic, and whether or not the best English Bible translation was done in 1611 or 2011.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, but we are scared to death that He might show up in a way that we don't consider appropriate.
We are argumentative and disliked, kind of like John Adams. It is both wonderful and maddening at the same time.
Oh by the way, Merry Christmas!
What is Baptist "theology"?
We have no official over arching position on Soteriology or Eschatology. So to fully understand "baptist" theology is to understand both the Doctrines of Grace and John Wesley, Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, and even Amillenialism. Can somebody give me a crisp definition of Amillenial Eschatology? Just kidding.
We can be General and Particular and still be Baptist.
Our best attribute is a reliance on the authority of Scripture. Our worst is our insistence on theological exclusivity on positions that are just not the big thing.
We argue over we should raise hands or not, whether the wine at the Last Supper was alcoholic, and whether or not the best English Bible translation was done in 1611 or 2011.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, but we are scared to death that He might show up in a way that we don't consider appropriate.
We are argumentative and disliked, kind of like John Adams. It is both wonderful and maddening at the same time.
Oh by the way, Merry Christmas!
Let me muddy the water.
What is Baptist "theology"?
We have no official over arching position on Soteriology or Eschatology. So to fully understand "baptist" theology is to understand both the Doctrines of Grace and John Wesley, Dispensationalism and Covenant theology, and even Amillenialism. Can somebody give me a crisp definition of Amillenial Eschatology? Just kidding.
We can be General and Particular and still be Baptist.
Our best attribute is a reliance on the authority of Scripture. Our worst is our insistence on theological exclusivity on positions that are just not the big thing.
We argue over we should raise hands or not, whether the wine at the Last Supper was alcoholic, and whether or not the best English Bible translation was done in 1611 or 2011.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, but we are scared to death that He might show up in a way that we don't consider appropriate.
We are argumentative and disliked, kind of like John Adams. It is both wonderful and maddening at the same time.
Oh by the way, Merry Christmas!
good question, maybe as in whatare the "distinctive" baptist doctrines that we all adhere to?
seems that individual right to read/interprete the Bible, and believers baptism 2 that come to mind!
There is so much misrepresentation within Baptist churches of what other denominations believe. There is a tendency to take what a small group believes and then broadbrush it to assume that all others which the Baptist happen to put in that group, believe the same.
For instance, many in the Oneness Pentecostal denomination believe a person must speak in tongues to be saved. They are very vocal about it. This is not the belief of most Pentecostal chutches, who believe speaking in tongues has nothing to do with salvation. The Oneness Pentecostal denomination is considered a cult by other Pentecostal churches as well as by most churches. Yet many baptists are not aware of this and assume they represent all Pentecostal believers because they are so vocal.
Just because you see something in writing about the beliefs of others does not mean it is true. For instance, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Moody Press) indicates that "Arminian doctrines reject security, employing experience as proof" of salvation. That is simply not true. At the end of that section of the book, two other books that promote eternal security, are referenced. I wonder where those two books got their false information. There are a few fringe holiness churches that emphasize experience as it relates to salvation security. Many times these few fringe churches are wrongly referenced to represent all others denominations.
Just because a book claims to represent what others believe, the information may not be true. A few years ago, our Pastor used a belief comparison book to teach on what various Christians believe; The book made wrong statements about what whole groups believe, based on some small fringe elements.
The Internet makes it relatively easy for each of us to determine what a denomination believes. Go to the denominational website and find out for yourself. The website will represent what the whole denomination believes, not what just some within it might believe.
THe other day, I saw in the local newspaper that the SBC is a Calvinist denomination as though all in the SBC are Classic Calvinists.
a little information about something can be dangeous when wrongly applied.
For instance, many in the Oneness Pentecostal denomination believe a person must speak in tongues to be saved. They are very vocal about it. This is not the belief of most Pentecostal chutches, who believe speaking in tongues has nothing to do with salvation. The Oneness Pentecostal denomination is considered a cult by other Pentecostal churches as well as by most churches. Yet many baptists are not aware of this and assume they represent all Pentecostal believers because they are so vocal.
Just because you see something in writing about the beliefs of others does not mean it is true. For instance, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Moody Press) indicates that "Arminian doctrines reject security, employing experience as proof" of salvation. That is simply not true. At the end of that section of the book, two other books that promote eternal security, are referenced. I wonder where those two books got their false information. There are a few fringe holiness churches that emphasize experience as it relates to salvation security. Many times these few fringe churches are wrongly referenced to represent all others denominations.
Just because a book claims to represent what others believe, the information may not be true. A few years ago, our Pastor used a belief comparison book to teach on what various Christians believe; The book made wrong statements about what whole groups believe, based on some small fringe elements.
The Internet makes it relatively easy for each of us to determine what a denomination believes. Go to the denominational website and find out for yourself. The website will represent what the whole denomination believes, not what just some within it might believe.
THe other day, I saw in the local newspaper that the SBC is a Calvinist denomination as though all in the SBC are Classic Calvinists.
a little information about something can be dangeous when wrongly applied.
There is so much misrepresentation within Baptist churches of what other denominations believe. There is a tendency to take what a small group believes and then broadbrush it to assume that all others which the Baptist happen to put in that group, believe the same.
Little knowledge can be a dangerous thing!
For instance, many in the Oneness Pentecostal denomination believe a person must speak in tongues to be saved. They are very vocal about it. This is not the belief of most Pentecostal chutches, who believe speaking in tongues has nothing to do with salvation. The Oneness Pentecostal denomination is considered a cult by other Pentecostal churches as well as by most churches. Yet many baptists are not aware of this and assume they represent all Pentecostal believers because they are so vocal.
Think that is the biggest problem have had in baptist circles since switching from Assemblies Of God...
fellow baptists broadbrush all of them as being just Word of faith/prosperity/oneness etc...
ALL those groups are heretical, but majority of those in pentacostal churches would not be...
Would disagree on their distinctives, andon being Arninianists, but not heretical!
Just because you see something in writing about the beliefs of others does not mean it is true. For instance, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Moody Press) indicates that "Arminian doctrines reject security, employing experience as proof" of salvation. That is simply not true. At the end of that section of the book, two other books that promote eternal security, are referenced. I wonder where those two books got their false information. There are a few fringe holiness churches that emphasize experience as it relates to salvation security. Many times these few fringe churches are wrongly referenced to represent all others denominations.
Just because a book claims to represent what others believe, the information may not be true. A few years ago, our Pastor used a belief comparison book to teach on what various Christians believe; The book made wrong statements about what whole groups believe, based on some small fringe elements.
The Internet makes it relatively easy for each of us to determine what a denomination believes. Go to the denominational website and find out for yourself. The website will represent what the whole denomination believes, not what just some within it might believe.
THe other day, I saw in the local newspaper that the SBC is a Calvinist denomination as though all in the SBC are Classic Calvinists.
a little information about something can be dangeous when wrongly applied.
Have seen it said with authority that IF one is a calvinist, cannot be eithera Dispy/Gifts still functioning, but have seen cals that say on their web sites and in Seminaries that "yes you can!"
When discussing the nuances of the theologies represented here by our various posters, would be good to have a "primer" available to detail just exactly what the positions that are being described from actually means, as sometimes think what is being represented as an example would NOT be what is actually held by those advocating that!
A Reverse Example of Misrepresentations
Since writing the above, I thought of a reverse example of how groups beliefs are misrepresented. On another thread, it was pointed out that Charles Stanley's belief in eternal security is different that what most Baptists believe and that he believes in a version of millinial exclusion. In short, Stanley believes the same as Zane Hodges believed. This is contained in Stanley's book on eternal security.
Also listed in Stanley's book is the fact that he was president of the Southern Baptist Convention for two years. Therefore, an uninformed Arminian could conclude that all SBC Christains (and probably all other Baptists) believe as Zane Hodges did on these two issues. In fact, before attending an SBC church, I believed that all Baptists believed the same as Charley Stanley on the eternal security part. Of course, most Baptist do not agree with Stanley and Hodges on these two issues.
However, Baptists have been making the same types of misguided assumptions about Arminians for years; resulting in both sermons being preached, and books being published, giving wrong information about what most Arminians believe. So it is best to question what other Baptists say about what others believe. Again, it is best to go to the denomination webpage to determine what a denomination actually believes.
There is so much misrepresentation within Baptist churches of what other denominations believe. There is a tendency to take what a small group believes and then broadbrush it to assume that all others which the Baptist happen to put in that group, believe the same.
For instance, many in the Oneness Pentecostal denomination believe a person must speak in tongues to be saved. They are very vocal about it. This is not the belief of most Pentecostal chutches, who believe speaking in tongues has nothing to do with salvation. The Oneness Pentecostal denomination is considered a cult by other Pentecostal churches as well as by most churches. Yet many baptists are not aware of this and assume they represent all Pentecostal believers because they are so vocal.
Just because you see something in writing about the beliefs of others does not mean it is true. For instance, The New Unger's Bible Dictionary (Moody Press) indicates that "Arminian doctrines reject security, employing experience as proof" of salvation. That is simply not true. At the end of that section of the book, two other books that promote eternal security, are referenced. I wonder where those two books got their false information. There are a few fringe holiness churches that emphasize experience as it relates to salvation security. Many times these few fringe churches are wrongly referenced to represent all others denominations.
Just because a book claims to represent what others believe, the information may not be true. A few years ago, our Pastor used a belief comparison book to teach on what various Christians believe; The book made wrong statements about what whole groups believe, based on some small fringe elements.
The Internet makes it relatively easy for each of us to determine what a denomination believes. Go to the denominational website and find out for yourself. The website will represent what the whole denomination believes, not what just some within it might believe.
THe other day, I saw in the local newspaper that the SBC is a Calvinist denomination as though all in the SBC are Classic Calvinists.
A little information about something can be dangeous when wrongly applied.
Since writing the above, I thought of a reverse example of how groups beliefs are misrepresented. On another thread, it was pointed out that Charles Stanley's belief in eternal security is different that what most Baptists believe and that he believes in a version of millinial exclusion. In short, Stanley believes the same as Zane Hodges believed. This is contained in Stanley's book on eternal security.
Also listed in Stanley's book is the fact that he was president of the Southern Baptist Convention for two years. Therefore, an uninformed Arminian could conclude that all SBC Christains (and probably all other Baptists) believe as Zane Hodges did on these two issues. In fact, before attending an SBC church, I believed that all Baptists believed the same as Charley Stanley on the eternal security part. Of course, most Baptist do not agree with Stanley and Hodges on these two issues.
However, Baptists have been making the same types of misguided assumptions about Arminians for years; resulting in both sermons being preached, and books being published, giving wrong information about what most Arminians believe. So it is best to question what other Baptists say about what others believe. Again, it is best to go to the denomination webpage to determine what a denomination actually believes.