I am a Baptist

[Alan Gross]

Unfortunately, your idea of 'Church History' is not Jesus' idea He showed with His Revelation of the seven churches of Asia. Any Biblical History would not be of 'Church History', but of The History of Churches.

The context of my first 3 or 4 paragraphs at I am a Baptist is the definition of idea as I meant to say that Jesus had of what He means when He used the word 'church', but I skipped ahead of myself and didn't get it plainly said in the first sentence.

It should have read, "Unfortunately, your idea of 'Church History' is not Jesus' idea, when it comes to the definition Jesus and the rest of The New Testament uses for His idea of what a church is.

Then, it goes on to explain what s church is, from the Bible.

That is something God may never be pleased to show you.

I am talking about historical theology (positions people held throughout history). I am not saying they were correct.

Baptist-like Doctrine of the local church only, salvation through Jesus buying His children out of the sin market as "purchased possessions" in exchange for a price, and believers' baptism, have been maintained by God perfectly well, as His pillars and grounds of the truth.

No evolutionists in theology needed.

You point to churches that held an understanding of the gospel you reject as being a "true church".

According to what?

I agree they were true churches

Way to go, JonC. That says something for your confidence in God's Ability to fulfill His promises.

But we should not ignore differences to pretend they were "like us".

How about not pretend everything about history and things written in invisible ink?

You hold a faith that is indebted to the Roman Catholic Church, the Reformers (especially the Presbyterian and Lutheran Church) and Anabaptist churches.

The world is indebted to Baptists and Baptist-like believers for any Bible teachings they have that preach more than a nickels'worth in six months and Religious Liberty.

Our nation is increasingly striving to rewrite history. Christians don't need to join that cause.

Then just stop.

Prior to the 17th century, no church that practiced believers baptism, for example, affirmed penal substitution.

Stop it.

They held what you call a screwed up position on the gospel.

I didn't call anything screwed up. If you are talking about your denial of Jesus drinking the dregs of the Wrath of God dry and want to know what I call it, it's Peganism, pure and simple.

. Yet they were the ones practicing believers baptism, NOT the ones who held your view of the gospel (until the 17th century they were baptizing infants).

I am going to go ahead and say that this may be from the Jonology Book of History, but that's it, other than possibly some spattering of some notions someone had about somebody at sometime that incomprehensive.

 

[JonC]

Please. Don't say people enter into the Kingdom of God in salvation by becoming as a little child.

I didn't. I said people enter the Kingdom by being born from above, born of the Spirit.

I don't point to kinship. I point to direct succession from the baptism of John.

And I from Christ.

I based if nothing else on 'like-begets-like',

But in terms of the gospel your likeness is unlike any before the 16th century.

Try as you might, JonC, to name one.

I have named several. The groups you mentioned did not believe the same doctrines. They did have believers baptism in common.

You mentioned Anabaptists. They rejected penal substitution and recognized it as reformed Roman Catholic doctrine. You defend penal substitution. So that is one.

I'm not sure if you reject early church (and early Anabaptist) doctrine by participating in the political system. If you vote then that's another.

If you served in the military that's also another difference. They would denounce you for military service, taking an oath, and supporting violence. (I'm not, I am retired Army).

You can try to quote me a 'Baptist' that believes in a union between church and State. If there is one, I'll suggest they spell their name with a little 'b'.

You have a bad habit of changing words. I did not say "union". I said that Anabaptist held a separation that most Baptists do not hold (they didn't vote, participate in politics, hold office). The Early Church was the same.

I'm not saying that is correct theology. I am saying that is a difference. Most would have been excommunicated from those sects you say were like you. You would have as well.

 

[JonC]

The context of my first 3 or 4 paragraphs at I am a Baptist is the definition of idea as I meant to say that Jesus had of what He means when He used the word 'church', but I skipped ahead of myself and didn't get it plainly said in the first sentence.

It should have read, "Unfortunately, your idea of 'Church History' is not Jesus' idea, when it comes to the definition Jesus and the rest of The New Testament uses for His idea of what a church is.

Then, it goes on to explain what s church is, from the Bible.

That is something God may never be pleased to show you.



Baptist-like Doctrine of the local church only, salvation through Jesus buying His children out of the sin market as "purchased possessions" in exchange for a price, and believers' baptism, have been maintained by God perfectly well, as His pillars and grounds of the truth.

No evolutionists in theology needed.



According to what?



Way to go, JonC. That says something for your confidence in God's Ability to fulfill His promises.



How about not pretend everything about history and things written in invisible ink?



The world is indebted to Baptists and Baptist-like believers for any Bible teachings they have that preach more than a nickels'worth in six months and Religious Liberty.



Then just stop.



Stop it.



I didn't call anything screwed up. If you are talking about your denial of Jesus drinking the dregs of the Wrath of God dry and want to know what I call it, it's Peganism, pure and simple.




I am going to go ahead and say that this may be from the Jonology Book of History, but that's it, other than possibly some spattering of some notions someone had about somebody at sometime that incomprehensive.

Why do you want me to stop stating facts?

I'm not saying those groups were correct, or that you are wrong (although I believe your theology is greatly flawed).

I am simply stating facts about groups you claim you came from.

Your theology did not exist until the 18th century. Baptists did not hold penal substitution until the 17th Century. Those are facts.

The Baptist church developed from existing Anabaptist Theology and the theology of the Reformation.

That does not mean it is wrong. But we shouldn't create myths to replace history.

And I am glad I was baptized with the baptism of Christ rather than John.

 

[Alan Gross]

Now, now. Lying is a sin.

I've got to find that post out of all your Anti-Jesus was made sin babblings?

Great.

 

[Alan Gross]

Only if one is ignorant of Scripture as a whole.

Out of 145 instances of the word 'gospel', I cited 20 something.

Cite the others up.

And replace the word 'gospel' with something other than what God spells it out as, in writing, like substitute "the awaited Kingdom has come". I can't wait.

The gospel is that the awaited kingdom has come. That is what Jesus said. The "good news" was that what was foreshadowed has appeared, that the Promise is fulfilled.

Out of all your de-railed prognostications, I never dreamed you wouldn't know what the Gospel is.

What you are calling the gospel are things about the gospel, what the gospel does, how one enters this Rest, etc.

Yeah, because 'the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ', is a statement of the exact meaning of the word, especially as it is explicitly defined and used throughout The New Testament. That is a historical fact.

Why do you want me to stop stating facts?

Because they are in your head, exclusively.

 

[JonC]

Out of 145 instances of the word 'gospel', I cited 20 something.

Cite the others up.

And replace the word 'gospel' with something other than what God spells it out as, in writing, like substitute "the awaited Kingdom has come". I can't wait.



Out of all your de-railed prognostications, I never dreamed you wouldn't know what the Gospel is.



Yeah, because 'the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ', is a statement of the exact meaning of the word, especially as it is explicitly defined and used throughout The New Testament. That is a historical fact.



Because they are in your head, exclusively.

I think you miss what I mean. Jesus declared the gospel (that the kingdom has come, the Promise is here). There are things about the gospel that are important. But they are not the gospel itself.

By Christian history I do not mean the gospel. I mean history (what has happened in the past, what those in the past believed based on their own statements of their belief).

We know, for example, that no baptistic church prior to the 17th century held Penal Substitution. We know this because they wrote about what they did believe (and when penal substitution was articulated they wrote in opposition to the view).

We know that Landmarkism came about in the 18th Century. We can read the arguments leading up to its development. We can read those Baptists who considered Landmarkism a form of Roman Catholic understanding of "church". We can walk through its development.

We know that Baptists benefitted from Anabaptist Theology as well as the various theologies of the Reformation (particularly Calvin and Luther).

Those are facts. You are banging your head against the wall trying to support myth. Why? It has no bearing on whether your actual theology is correct.

 

[Alan Gross]

I'm not saying those groups were correct, or that you are wrong (although I believe your theology is greatly flawed).

My pastor wrote in a note to me and in it, one of the things that he said to me was that I was one of the most "Solid" men he had ever met. I asked him if he was meaning "sound I'm the faith", by that.

He said "Br. Alan, I have never seen you blown about by every wind of doctrine."

O.K., thanks, cool.

Another poster said that because I quoted scripture references in one post (is there another?) instead of writing it out, that that was a sure sign I was a false teacher(?)

O.K., thanks, cool. You guys give me dimension.

Your theology did not exist until the 18th century. Baptists did not hold penal substitution until the 17th Century. Those are facts.

Those are the facts in the head of one Jonology (spell check brought it up!) History author. None-doubtedly.

The Baptist church developed from existing Anabaptist Theology and the theology of the Reformation.

Not according to the likes of GotQuestions.org, no more or less;

"Tracking down the origins of the Baptist Church in general is an exercise in ancient church history.

"From the days of the apostles, there was one Church of Jesus Christ, with a single body of doctrine taught by the apostles.

"The various local churches preached repentance and confession of sins, along with baptism by immersion as an outward sign of the new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

"Under the authority of the apostles themselves as to doctrine, each church was independently governed by the leaders God placed in them...etc."

They do very well on Baptist-like history, up to a point.

They certainly make everything named Baptist to be Landmark in ecclesiology.

Maybe, some you are familiar with simply "departed from the faith" a generation or more before you came along, if the ever had it. One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

It's not your fault.

And, I can't tell anyone what to believe. The Lord just Loves His church He built as an Institution to bring Him Glory and be His true witnesses, doing His business.

I'm just a child of God who loves the Lord and am bragging on Him and His churches that He privileged me to be a member of, by Leading and Guiding me through the Holy Spirit to be added to one.

That is the Holy Spirit's business, to save, add members by Leading them to be baptized into one of His kind of churches by His Authority, give them gifts, jand have them back regularly to teach them all things He has Commanded.

Like, "Repent and be baptized", as Peter said under the direct influence of the Shekinah Glory Jesus immersed and figuratively baptized His church at Jerusalem with, on the Day of Pentecost.

That same Shekinah Glory is the Candlestick Presence of God in His assemblies, today. Unless, He has spewn the out of His Mouth and they have "Ichabod" written above their door.

I Samuel 4:22;
"And she said, The glory is departed from Israel:
for the ark of God is taken".

Ichabod

Main Results
Description
Ichabod (Hebrew: אִיכָבוֹד ʼīyḵāḇōḏ, – without glory, or "where is the glory?") is mentioned in the first Book of Samuel as the son of Phinehas, a priest at the biblical shrine of Shiloh, who was born on the day that the Israelites' Ark of God was taken into Philistine captivity.

And I am glad I was baptized with the baptism of Christ rather than John.

There is "one baptism" equally Authoritative as One Lord and one faith.

That "one baptism" was from a man sent from God with His Authority to baptism, according to Jesus, and there was never another one.

To submit and follow the Lord, as He was baptized by John the Baptist, which was witnessed and approved of by an appearance of the Triune Godhead, is the Command of God to every saved individual.

The one baptism by the Authority of God is a portion of The Counsel of God.

The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the baptism of John the Baptist, in Luke 7:30, because they despised God Commandment.

The Authority of John's baptism, as the man sent from God to baptism, was the product of God's Eternal Counsel and Omnipotent Wisdom, as a portion of His whole scheme of The Manifold Wisdom and Whole Counsel of God, just as The Lord's Supper is, and the Divine Ordinances the Lord Instituted in His New Testament Gospel preaching churches are not the invention of men, to be trifled with frivolously, ignored, rejected, or legislated into some other form.

"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Like 7:30.

Br. Gill says, that these Pharisees and lawyers, just like every other wise and prudent Pharisee or lawyer "rejected the counsel of God against themselves"; against their own advantage, to their hurt and detriment; since by their impenitence and unbelief, and through their rejection of Christ and his forerunner, and the Gospel and the ordinances of it, they brought ruin and destruction, both temporal and eternal, upon themselves: or "towards themselves", or "unto them"; that is, they "rejected the command of God unto them", as the Arabic version renders it: for by "the counsel of God" here, is not meant his purpose, intention, and design, with respect to these persons, which was not, nor never is frustrated; but the precept of God, and so the Ethiopic version renders it,
"they despised the command of God."

 

[JonC]

My pastor wrote in a note to me and in it, one of the things that he said to me was that I was one of the most "Solid" men he had ever met. I asked him if he was meaning "sound I'm the faith", by that.

He said "Br. Alan, I have never seen you blown about by every wind of doctrine."

O.K., thanks, cool.

Another poster said that because I quoted scripture references in one post (is there another?) instead of writing it out, that that was a sure sign I was a false teacher(?)

O.K., thanks, cool. You guys give me dimension.



Those are the facts in the head of one Jonology (spell check brought it up!) History author. None-doubtedly.



Not according to the likes of GotQuestions.org, no more or less;

"Tracking down the origins of the Baptist Church in general is an exercise in ancient church history.

"From the days of the apostles, there was one Church of Jesus Christ, with a single body of doctrine taught by the apostles.

"The various local churches preached repentance and confession of sins, along with baptism by immersion as an outward sign of the new life in Christ (Romans 6:3-4).

"Under the authority of the apostles themselves as to doctrine, each church was independently governed by the leaders God placed in them...etc."

They do very well on Baptist-like history, up to a point.

They certainly make everything named Baptist to be Landmark in ecclesiology.

Maybe, some you are familiar with simply "departed from the faith" a generation or more before you came along, if the ever had it. One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

It's not your fault.

And, I can't tell anyone what to believe. The Lord just Loves His church He built as an Institution to bring Him Glory and be His true witnesses, doing His business.

I'm just a child of God who loves the Lord and am bragging on Him and His churches that He privileged me to be a member of, by Leading and Guiding me through the Holy Spirit to be added to one.

That is the Holy Spirit's business, to save, add members by Leading them to be baptized into one of His kind of churches by His Authority, give them gifts, jand have them back regularly to teach them all things He has Commanded.

Like, "Repent and be baptized", as Peter said under the direct influence of the Shekinah Glory Jesus immersed and figuratively baptized His church at Jerusalem with, on the Day of Pentecost.

That same Shekinah Glory is the Candlestick Presence of God in His assemblies, today. Unless, He has spewn the out of His Mouth and they have "Ichabod" written above their door.

I Samuel 4:22;
"And she said, The glory is departed from Israel:
for the ark of God is taken".

Ichabod
View attachment 8215
Main Results
Description
Ichabod (Hebrew: אִיכָבוֹד ʼīyḵāḇōḏ, – without glory, or "where is the glory?") is mentioned in the first Book of Samuel as the son of Phinehas, a priest at the biblical shrine of Shiloh, who was born on the day that the Israelites' Ark of God was taken into Philistine captivity.



There is "one baptism" equally Authoritative as One Lord and one faith.

That "one baptism" was from a man sent from God with His Authority to baptism, according to Jesus, and there was never another one.

To submit and follow the Lord, as He was baptized by John the Baptist, which was witnessed and approved of by an appearance of the Triune Godhead, is the Command of God to every saved individual.

The one baptism by the Authority of God is a portion of The Counsel of God.

The Pharisees and lawyers rejected the baptism of John the Baptist, in Luke 7:30, because they despised God Commandment.

The Authority of John's baptism, as the man sent from God to baptism, was the product of God's Eternal Counsel and Omnipotent Wisdom, as a portion of His whole scheme of The Manifold Wisdom and Whole Counsel of God, just as The Lord's Supper is, and the Divine Ordinances the Lord Instituted in His New Testament Gospel preaching churches are not the invention of men, to be trifled with frivolously, ignored, rejected, or legislated into some other form.

"But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him." Like 7:30.

Br. Gill says, that these Pharisees and lawyers, just like every other wise and prudent Pharisee or lawyer "rejected the counsel of God against themselves"; against their own advantage, to their hurt and detriment; since by their impenitence and unbelief, and through their rejection of Christ and his forerunner, and the Gospel and the ordinances of it, they brought ruin and destruction, both temporal and eternal, upon themselves: or "towards themselves", or "unto them"; that is, they "rejected the command of God unto them", as the Arabic version renders it: for by "the counsel of God" here, is not meant his purpose, intention, and design, with respect to these persons, which was not, nor never is frustrated; but the precept of God, and so the Ethiopic version renders it,
"they despised the command of God."

I am not saying that you are not solid on what you believe.

The issue I have seen with you is that you are not solid on what other people believe, yet you readily dive into their beliefs.

People are different. When it comes to history I am very objective. I refuse to tinker with what people in the past said they believe.

There are facts. One is that no baptistic church prior to the 17th century believed Penal Substitution.

That is one fact that you cannot get around. History is not opinion. Facts do not care about feelings.

Baptist churches today are a mixture of Baptistic theologies (which excluded penal substitution), Lutheran Theology (satisfaction atonement, but focused on justification), and Calvinism (penal substitution).

As proof I will note that I mentioned several Baptistic groups prior to the 17th century that did not hold Penal Substitution while you were unable to mention even one that held Penal Substitution.

You talk a lot but for some reason do not back up your claims.

I think your time would be better spent dealing with Scripture rather than history.

It does not matter that your "succession" started (in reality) during the 18th Century. Your position could still be correct (biblically, not historically).

 

[37818]

One is that no baptistic church prior to the 17th century believed Penal Substitution.

What is the evidence that is based on?
Careful, both OT and NT have teachings where the terminology "penal substitution" is understood today to describe those Biblical statements!

 

[JonC]

What is the evidence that is based on?
Careful, both OT and NT have teachings where the terminology "penal substitution" is understood today to describe those Biblical statements!

The fact that no Baptistic church prior to the 17th century defined the atonement as penal substitution and in the 17th century the Baptistic churches accused those who held Penal Substitution as holding doctrine too close to Roman Catholic doctrine rather than going to Scripture.

Do you know of any Baptistic churches prior to the 17th Century that DID hold penal substitution?

If so, name them.



Baptist churches today benefited from those earlier Baptistic churches. But they also benefited from the Reformation.

 

[Alan Gross]

What is the evidence that is based on?
Careful, both OT and NT have teachings where the terminology "penal substitution" is understood today to describe those Biblical statements!

The Old Testament and New Testament go on back with the Authority of their historical integrity, which is impeccable, don't they?

Starting with Genesis 3:15; "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

and 3:21; "Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

 

[37818]

The fact that no Baptistic church prior to the 17th century defined the atonement as penal substitution and in the 17th century the Baptistic churches accused those who held Penal Substitution as holding doctrine too close to Roman Catholic doctrine rather than going to Scripture.

Groups called by the name "Baptist" did not exist until the 17th century. And silence on the use of that terminology doesn't prove your case. OT, Isaiah 53, the NT itself. Like Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8 etc.

 

[JonC]

Groups called by the name "Baptist" did not exist until the 17th century. And silence on the use of that terminology doesn't prove your case. OT, Isaiah 53, the NT itself. Like Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8 etc.

I said "Baptist" (or meant to).

Yes, absence of any evidence when we have their writings about their belief is proof.

 

[37818]

Yes, absence of any evidence when we have their writings about their belief is proof.

Huh, proof based on an argument of silence.

Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8 among other passages are today described with the terminology "Penal Substitution." So earlier non use means that terminology cannot be true?

 

[JonC]

Huh, proof based on an argument of silence.

Romans 6:23 with Romans 5:8 among other passages are today described with the terminology "Penal Substitution." So earlier non use means that terminology cannot be true?

Yes. We are talking about HISTORY. Not whether those people were correct.

I think you confused this thread with another about penal substitution.

 

[37818]

Yes. We are talking about HISTORY. Not whether those people were correct.

I think you confused this thread with another about penal substitution.

The history from first century churches are the New Testament documents. Those documents are to be the bases of being Baptist. Arguing interpretations between first century and now cannot change the truth of the teachings of those New Testament texts we now also call "Baptist" teachings.

 

[JonC]

The history from first century churches are the New Testament documents. Those documents are to be the bases of being Baptist. Arguing interpretations between first century and now cannot change the truth of the teachings of those New Testament texts we now also call "Baptist" teachings.

Kinda, but not really. The New Testament is a part of that history. How they interpreted the New Testament is in their writings.

We know that the 1st Century Christians were not Calvinistic. We know they did not hold penal substitution. We know they held a type of pre-mill eschatology. We know they expected Christ's return soon. We know they did not participate in politics or voting (the ones who were Roman citizens). We know they refused military service.

We know these things because they wrote about them.

Just saying that the NT is proof some people believed what is not actually recorded in the text of the NT does not cut it, especially when we know they did not.

What is concerning here is not correct theology (there were various views throughout history). What is concerning is so many seem willing to ignore history in favor of a mythology.

Provide one Baptistic writing prior to the 17th Century that expresses penal substitution. You can't because none exist. Why? Because Baptistic churches were not a part of the system through which penal substitution was ultimately articulated.

 

[37818]

Kinda, but not really. The New Testament is a part of that history.

It is the sole actual first century church history.

 

[JonC]

Here are a few examples of what I am talking about.

Some look to the Donatists as historical Baptists because they were persecuted. But the Donatists were not Baptists at all. They believed the priests had to be sinless in order to administer the sacraments. One sect forced Romans to kill them so they could die as martyrs

We have the Waldenses who believed poverty was the way to perfection. They held Anselm's view of Atonement (not penal substitution).

History matters.

 

[JonC]

It is the sole actual first century church history.

No. It is not the sole actual history. History continued around and after the writing of Scripture.

History does not mean correct belief. But Early Church writings about what they believed are a part of history.

The NT does not state Penal Substitution. Could the early church have articulated that theory? No, because too much of that depended on the working out of theology. Years were spent discussing satisfaction, and later substitution, and later penal substitution (a different type of substitution). Punishment was discussed for years before penal substitution was developed (satisfactory vs simple).

History is history. Just like Scripture, we can make interpretations and theories, but we should NEVER rewrite it.