Not all Calvinists are the same

[Rippon]

Brother Rippon,

I believe the Baptist people have always been among us from the time of John the Baptist, though be it known by different names throughout history and not under the name "Baptists".. Paul wrote, "Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages" (Ephesians 3:21). This verse can't be true if Baptist churches haven't always been "throughout all ages" and the only "church" was the Roman Catholic church up until the time of the Reformation.

Accurate Church History does not support Landmarkism. Baptists started out in the early 17th century. The movement stemmed from Puritanism --Separatists--Baptists. It was a process. Have you ever heard of the J-L-J Church? It was named after its first three pastors --Jacob,Lathrop and Jessy. It started out as a Separatist congregation. Folks had to meet in secret from William Laud. It was started in 1616. It had two friendly splits in 1633 and 1638. The people who left wanted to go further with what they believed the Bible taught regarding baptism. It wasn't until 1644 that they got a more secure footing and released a Confession of Faith (revised in 1644 --which was revised in the 1670s and ultimately the 1689 was published). It's a fascinating history. James Renihan and Michael Haykin are two men you should stary listening to. They are very informative. But the list of historians and scholars who support the English Sep. View is quite long.

The Roman Catholic Church was not the only Communion during the Dark Ages. I do believe that the Lord has always had a people throughout the centuries. A remnant --but they were not Baptist as you would want to believe. God-honoring assemblies are not only in the Baptistic fold.

I'll quote a snip from Thomas Patient in the year 1654 :
"That this Solemn Ordinance for many hundred years, hath been neither preached, nor practiced..."

Patient knew how biblically based the ordinance of Baptism was. Yet as the Feast of Tabernacles was lost for a long time so also true Baptism was revived after hundreds of years.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Accurate Church History does not support Landmarkism. Baptists started out in the early 17th century..

Hi Brother Rippon,

First, let me clarify, I may have not made it clear from my post, I do believe Baptists have always existed, but I do not hold to what often correlates to this known as "successionism". what was the faith which was once delivered to the saints? We are not now to ask: Are our ministers by succession of ordination, through the dark ages of papal abominations – traceable to the apostles? But rather let it be asked: Are they such men as the Holy Ghost commanded the church to separate to the work whereunto He had called them and what was the faith that was once delivered to all the saints?

The Roman Catholic Church was not the only Communion during the Dark Ages. I do believe that the Lord has always had a people throughout the centuries. A remnant --but they were not Baptist as you would want to believe.

I too concur with you that the Lord has always had a remnant throughout all ages, even in the time of the Roman Catholic church that was separate from the Catholics. While they may not have all been blessed to know the five points of the doctrines of grace or explicitly carried "Baptist" in their name, make no mistake, they were Baptists and do not have their origin out of Rome. "Among the persecuted people of God have been the Novatians, Donatists, Cathari, Paterines, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, Henericans, Arnoldists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, Mennonites and baptists, nearly all of whom were occasionally designated Anabaptist or re-baptizers by their enemies, because they disregarded infant or unregenerate baptism, and baptize all adults, whether previously baptized or not, who, upon a credible profession of faith, applied to them for the membership in their churches-thus insisting upon a spiritual or regenerated church membership, the First and most important mark of the apostolic church. " (Source http://pbministries.org/History/S. Hassell/church_of_god_09.htm )

You seem to enjoy reading as you have a rich knowledge of historical individuals in the church along with history that can be gleaned from your posts. If you ever have the time and desire I suggest reading the following regarding the Waldenses titled, "WERE THE WALDENSES BAPTISTS OR PEDO-BAPTISTS?". It is here http://www.reformedreader.org/history/borpb.htm

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[JonC]

Jon: You expalined yourself exceptionally well in post 59. I understand your positionn now and agree for the most part. Your term "Baptistic Theology" threw me off. I get it --you weren't trying to say Baptist Theology. However, I would still be hesitant to use the term theology here. The word 'theology' is too broad-based. Those three principles are rather limited for an expression of Faith.

Besides, immersion wasn't even mentioned. From what I can tell full immersion baptism didn't happen until around 1641.

Also, you said Methodists are Reformed. I really don't think so. Now M-L-J came from a Calvinistic-Methodist background. But that was an exception to the rule. It was primarily Calvinistic in the 18th century and centered in Wales.

Looking around in America today --can any Methodist Church be considered even remotely Calvinistic?

Rippon, you are right that "theology" is too broad a term. I should have simply uses one doctrine (probably the teaching that baptism is for those who believe). I think my comments would have been more clearly understood.

Someone here had mentioned contemporary Calvinistic Methodists in response to one of my posts, but I can't recall who or which post. Certainly the Methodist congregation of Whitfield was Calvinistic.

But you are right about the terms being confusing. By Reformed I meant of the Reformation (not DoG). The doctrines of Luther and Calvin are apparent even in Wesleyan Arminianism (and of course, Arminianism itself was of Calvinistic trajectory, departing over soterioligical disagreements).

The difficulty in conversation, in my experience, is when we speak of historical and contemporary theology as terms may carry two meanings (e.g., Reformed, Calvinistic...it is both ironic and interesting that the Lutherans who coined the term "Calvinism" over differences of the Table would themselves be Calvinists by today's contemporary use). I'm not sure this can be avoided as many of these terms do carry different meanings, but I think we agree here.

 

[JonC]

Brother Joe,
I understand what you mean, but we cannot trace Baptist church history back in that manner. Yes, there are doctrines that were correct outside of the Catholic Church, but those churches did not hold completely correct doctrine either.

As an exercise and illustration: while united in Christ, the New Testament churches (individually) were also different. They held to an extent different teachings (different doctrines) in practice (mind you,not different gospels). The church in Rome was was different from the church in Galatia, which was different from the one in Corinth, which was different from the one in Jerusalem. Which one was the true Church?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

God-honoring assemblies are not only in the Baptistic fold.

I do not deny that God has people outside of Baptist churches, but maintain only Baptist churches are of they type of true apostolic churches. Sylvester Hassel laid out marks of an apostolic church based upon the scriptural prototype and I agree with them and only some, but not all Baptist churches to my knowledge meet them. They are-

1. A regenerate church membership—History of the unscriptural Catholic practice of infant baptism, the principle of which involves the horrible doctrine of the everlasting damnation of all unbaptized children who die in infancy.

2. The baptism (by which, of course, is meant the full immersion-the word “baptism” means nothing else) of believers in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. History of the unscriptural Roman Catholic substitute of sprinkling or pouring for baptism—Man has no right to change the perfect ordinances of God

3. The frequent observance, by baptized and orderly-walking believers, of the Lord’s Supper; the bread representing the broken body, and the wine the shed blood of their precious Redeemer

4. The maintenance of strict discipline—Ananias and Sapphire—The Corinthian offender excluded, and after repentance restored by the church—The brethren took part with the Apostles and Elders in the conference at Jerusalem—Hymeneus and Alexander excluded for denying the doctrine of the resurrection

5. The independent or congregational polity or government of each local church, subject only to the Headship of Christ—Kakal and ecclesia—The local church the highest and last ecclesiastical authority on earth, according to the teaching of Christ

6 The complete separation of Church an State—Emancipation from the unscriptural traditions and commandments of men—The typical Jewish Church-State power superseded by the unworldly, spiritual church of the New Testament—The alliance of “Church” and State, since the coming of Christ, always productive of corruption and persecution—Fifty millions of human beings murdered by Papal Rome

7. The general poverty, illiteracy, obscurity, and afflicted and persecuted condition of the members—The Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, Christ and His Apostles and the primitive disciples, and the people of God during the last eighteen centuries.

8. The fraternal equality of the ministry as well as of the membership—Only two classes of church officers, Bishops, or Elders, or Pastors, and Deacons

9. A humble, God-called and God-qualified ministry, mostly destitute of human training (i.e. not utilizing man invented seminaries as the prerequisite form of training)—The foolish things of the world chosen of God to confound the wise, that the glory may be His—Paul, when called to the service of Christ, conferred not with flesh and blood, and was made by God an able minister of the New Testament

10. An unsalaried ministry, helped by the voluntary contributions of their churches, but also laboring more or less for their own support; freely receiving of God, and freely giving of their spiritual things to their brethren, while the latter also freely ministered of their carnal substance to them—The true ministry are not hirelings, preaching for filthy lucre’s sake—The noble, self‑denying, Christ-like example of Paul—Salaries attract unqualified men into the ministry—Unstipulated voluntary contributions to the ministry practiced for the first three centuries.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother Joe,
I understand what you mean, but we cannot trace Baptist church history back in that manner. Yes, there are doctrines that were correct outside of the Catholic Church, but those churches did not hold completely correct doctrine either.

As an exercise and illustration: while united in Christ, the New Testament churches (individually) were also different. They held to an extent different teachings (different doctrines) in practice (mind you,not different gospels). The church in Rome was was different from the church in Galatia, which was different from the one in Corinth, which was different from the one in Jerusalem. Which one was the true Church?

Hi Brother Jon,

I do not deny that their was some heretical teaches in churches even in Paul's time that were nonetheless still true apostolic churches as evidenced by the church of Galatia and Corinth, however all apostolic Baptist churches did follow the following markings that are all laid out in the New Testament. I posted them in reply to brother Rippon in my previous post, but will post them again in my reply to you as it is how one can test for a "true church".

Sylvester Hassel laid out marks of an apostolic church based upon the scriptural prototype and I agree with them and only some, but not all Baptist churches to my knowledge meet them. They are-

1. A regenerate church membership—History of the unscriptural Catholic practice of infant baptism, the principle of which involves the horrible doctrine of the everlasting damnation of all unbaptized children who die in infancy.

2. The baptism (by which, of course, is meant the full immersion-the word “baptism” means nothing else) of believers in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. History of the unscriptural Roman Catholic substitute of sprinkling or pouring for baptism—Man has no right to change the perfect ordinances of God

3. The frequent observance, by baptized and orderly-walking believers, of the Lord’s Supper; the bread representing the broken body, and the wine the shed blood of their precious Redeemer

4. The maintenance of strict discipline—Ananias and Sapphire—The Corinthian offender excluded, and after repentance restored by the church—The brethren took part with the Apostles and Elders in the conference at Jerusalem—Hymeneus and Alexander excluded for denying the doctrine of the resurrection

5. The independent or congregational polity or government of each local church, subject only to the Headship of Christ—Kakal and ecclesia—The local church the highest and last ecclesiastical authority on earth, according to the teaching of Christ

6 The complete separation of Church an State—Emancipation from the unscriptural traditions and commandments of men—The typical Jewish Church-State power superseded by the unworldly, spiritual church of the New Testament—The alliance of “Church” and State, since the coming of Christ, always productive of corruption and persecution—Fifty millions of human beings murdered by Papal Rome

7. The general poverty, illiteracy, obscurity, and afflicted and persecuted condition of the members—The Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, Christ and His Apostles and the primitive disciples, and the people of God during the last eighteen centuries.

8. The fraternal equality of the ministry as well as of the membership—Only two classes of church officers, Bishops, or Elders, or Pastors, and Deacons

9. A humble, God-called and God-qualified ministry, mostly destitute of human training (i.e. not utilizing man invented seminaries as the prerequisite form of training)—The foolish things of the world chosen of God to confound the wise, that the glory may be His—Paul, when called to the service of Christ, conferred not with flesh and blood, and was made by God an able minister of the New Testament

10. An unsalaried ministry, helped by the voluntary contributions of their churches, but also laboring more or less for their own support; freely receiving of God, and freely giving of their spiritual things to their brethren, while the latter also freely ministered of their carnal substance to them—The true ministry are not hirelings, preaching for filthy lucre’s sake—The noble, self‑denying, Christ-like example of Paul—Salaries attract unqualified men into the ministry—Unstipulated voluntary contributions to the ministry practiced for the first three centuries.

Brother Joe

 

[JonC]

Hi Brother Jon,

I do not deny that their was some heretical teaches in churches even in Paul's time that were nonetheless still true apostolic churches as evidenced by the church of Galatia and Corinth, however all apostolic Baptist churches did follow the following markings that are all laid out in the New Testament. I posted them in reply to brother Rippon in my previous post, but will post them again in my reply to you as it is how one can test for a "true church".

Sylvester Hassel laid out marks of an apostolic church based upon the scriptural prototype and I agree with them and only some, but not all Baptist churches to my knowledge meet them. They are-

1. A regenerate church membership—History of the unscriptural Catholic practice of infant baptism, the principle of which involves the horrible doctrine of the everlasting damnation of all unbaptized children who die in infancy.

2. The baptism (by which, of course, is meant the full immersion-the word “baptism” means nothing else) of believers in water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. History of the unscriptural Roman Catholic substitute of sprinkling or pouring for baptism—Man has no right to change the perfect ordinances of God

3. The frequent observance, by baptized and orderly-walking believers, of the Lord’s Supper; the bread representing the broken body, and the wine the shed blood of their precious Redeemer

4. The maintenance of strict discipline—Ananias and Sapphire—The Corinthian offender excluded, and after repentance restored by the church—The brethren took part with the Apostles and Elders in the conference at Jerusalem—Hymeneus and Alexander excluded for denying the doctrine of the resurrection

5. The independent or congregational polity or government of each local church, subject only to the Headship of Christ—Kakal and ecclesia—The local church the highest and last ecclesiastical authority on earth, according to the teaching of Christ

6 The complete separation of Church an State—Emancipation from the unscriptural traditions and commandments of men—The typical Jewish Church-State power superseded by the unworldly, spiritual church of the New Testament—The alliance of “Church” and State, since the coming of Christ, always productive of corruption and persecution—Fifty millions of human beings murdered by Papal Rome

7. The general poverty, illiteracy, obscurity, and afflicted and persecuted condition of the members—The Old Testament Prophets, John the Baptist, Christ and His Apostles and the primitive disciples, and the people of God during the last eighteen centuries.

8. The fraternal equality of the ministry as well as of the membership—Only two classes of church officers, Bishops, or Elders, or Pastors, and Deacons

9. A humble, God-called and God-qualified ministry, mostly destitute of human training (i.e. not utilizing man invented seminaries as the prerequisite form of training)—The foolish things of the world chosen of God to confound the wise, that the glory may be His—Paul, when called to the service of Christ, conferred not with flesh and blood, and was made by God an able minister of the New Testament

10. An unsalaried ministry, helped by the voluntary contributions of their churches, but also laboring more or less for their own support; freely receiving of God, and freely giving of their spiritual things to their brethren, while the latter also freely ministered of their carnal substance to them—The true ministry are not hirelings, preaching for filthy lucre’s sake—The noble, self‑denying, Christ-like example of Paul—Salaries attract unqualified men into the ministry—Unstipulated voluntary contributions to the ministry practiced for the first three centuries.

Brother Joe

Good Morning, Brother.

Looking at the differences between the churches in the New Testament, and looking at differing doctrines through history, why those doctrines as indications of a true church?

I ask because all of those issues that are marks of an apostolic church seem to be secondary issues. I do not understand why we would cling to churches that hold some Baptist doctrines (believers baptism, I'll even grant full immersion although I have not seen enough evidence either way, two classes of church officers, etc.) while many other beliefs differed from Baptist theology (the nature of civil government, the degree of separation of the church, perhaps atonement theories, the relationship between works and faith, etc). Why those certain doctrines? My suggestion is because they are what has set Baptists apart as a denomination within Protestant faith.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Good Morning, Brother.

Looking at the differences between the churches in the New Testament, and looking at differing doctrines through history, why those doctrines as indications of a true church?

I ask because all of those issues that are marks of an apostolic church seem to be secondary issues. I do not understand why we would cling to churches that hold some Baptist doctrines (believers baptism, I'll even grant full immersion although I have not seen enough evidence either way, two classes of church officers, etc.) while many other beliefs differed from Baptist theology (the nature of civil government, the degree of separation of the church, perhaps atonement theories, the relationship between works and faith, etc). Why those certain doctrines? My suggestion is because they are what has set Baptists apart as a denomination within Protestant faith.

I would say Brother Jon I agree with you that the markings Hassel listed are more practices than doctrines, but if you look at them many of them would eliminate many so called "churches" off the bat such as those not doing baptism by full body immersion (Baptists are probably one of few churches that do such), those that do not rebaptize those coming from non-Baptist orders to join, those that have many members that are not "regenerated" and have not witnessed a confession of faith, those that have mane made institutions of seminaries as the means of qualifying their elders rather than the calling of the Holy Ghost, and those that have salaried pastors or unscriptural church positions/offices.

Of course true church's will also be accompanied by an agreement on the general essentials of believing upon the gospel of Christ's cross work alone subsequent resurrection being sole basis for one's forgiveness of sins and not preach "a different Jesus" such as do the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. There can be differences on nonessential doctrines. I would say "nonessential" doctrinal differences are anything that is not at the heart of the gospel (i.e trusting in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection alone for justification and the he is God incarnate who became man).

 

[JonC]

I would say Brother Jon I agree with you that the markings Hassel listed are more practices than doctrines, but if you look at them many of them would eliminate many so called "churches" off the bat such as those not doing baptism by full body immersion (Baptists are probably one of few churches that do such), those that do not rebaptize those coming from non-Baptist orders to join, those that have many members that are not "regenerated" and have not witnessed a confession of faith, those that have mane made institutions of seminaries as the means of qualifying their elders rather than the calling of the Holy Ghost, and those that have salaried pastors or unscriptural church positions/offices.

Of course true church's will also be accompanied by an agreement on the general essentials of believing upon the gospel of Christ's cross work alone subsequent resurrection being sole basis for one's forgiveness of sins and not preach "a different Jesus" such as do the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses. There can be differences on nonessential doctrines. I would say "nonessential" doctrinal differences are anything that is not at the heart of the gospel (i.e trusting in Christ's sacrifice and resurrection alone for justification and the he is God incarnate who became man).

I guess the question is one of standards (which standards to cling to). For example, substitution theory of atonement, is a common Baptist view not expressed by those churches Hassel looks towards. This is just one example, but it is IMHO, more important an issue than the commonality he seeks. I don't understand why Baptists, which are so different from these "true churches" conclude that a few common traits on secondary issues outweigh differences on larger issues (justification, atonement, extent of soul liberty, etc). I served in the military and do not think it heresy for Christians to hold office, so my views would be heresy to Hassel's churches as well. So my question remains, why those things and not others?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I served in the military and do not think it heresy for Christians to hold office, so my views would be heresy to Hassel's churches as well. ?

Brother Jon,

By the various "offices" or "positions" Hassel is referring to church offices such as deacon and elder/bishop being the only two official God ordained church "offices", but many churches have made man made additional offices/positions for individuals in their church. He is not talking about governmental positions/offices.

 

[JonC]

Brother Jon,

By the various "offices" or "positions" Hassel is referring to church offices such as deacon and elder/bishop being the only two official God ordained church "offices", but many churches have made man made additional offices/positions for individuals in their church. He is not talking about governmental positions/offices.

Yes, brother. That is my question. He takes the offices of the church as a standard, but those churches had very different view of other doctrines such as civil government. Most Baptists hold doctrine contrary to these "pure churches.". My question is why count the few common doctrines we share as true marks and dismiss our differences when these differences are substantial and often of more importance than what we have in common?

In other words, why consider those churches as having pure doctrine when they would view us as heretics? It seems inconsistent to me.

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Yes, brother. That is my question. He takes the offices of the church as a standard, but those churches had very different view of other doctrines such as civil government. Most Baptists hold doctrine contrary to these "pure churches.". My question is why count the few common doctrines we share as true marks and dismiss our differences when these differences are substantial and often of more importance than what we have in common?

In other words, why consider those churches as having pure doctrine when they would view us as heretics? It seems inconsistent to me.

Brother,

The churches at Galatia had drifted to mixing works into the gospel, but Paul did not cease to call it a church. While I agree with Hassel regarding his marks of true apostolic churches, because of churches such as Galatia having such a deviation from the true gospel into a gospel of works, yet Paul not disqualifying them as a "church", I find it hard to draw a line in the sand when a "church" is not a "true church" due solely to doctrinal deviations from the truth. I would only say if a church teaches a method other than salvation by grace alone, through the atonement alone, or teaches another Jesus it certainly is not a "church". I am sure the brethren at the church of Galatia took heed to Paul's corrective epistle to them. I suppose, but for the grace of God, it is possible for any true believer to fall back into a "works system" for a time (just like it is possible for true believers to fall back into gross sin such as David did), but if they are truly saved they will be delivered from their doctrinal error of the whoredom of justification by works and glorying in the flesh by the power of the Holy Ghost.

The New Testament's original church practices and characteristics are clear and I believe Hassel did an excellent job of outlining them along with providing ample Biblical support in so doing. http://pbministries.org/History/S. Hassell/church_of_god_09.htm.

I believe any true church will have these apostolic markings and seek to worship at only such churches who do.

 

[JonC]

Brother Joe,

Consider this for a moment:

On January 21, 1525, a man named Conrad Grebel performed the first adult baptism recorded in Zurich when he baptized George Blaurock at the home of Felix Manz. That day Blaurock in turn baptized several others. In February 1525 Conrad Grebel baptized Wolfgang Ulimann by immersion in the Rhine River.

We know that believers baptism, and even adult baptism by immersion, occurred before the Baptist denomination came about. When you read that history of the Swiss Breathern, you rightly admire those heroes who suffered (Grebel was imprisoned for his position on baptism, Manz was executed by drowning, and Blaurock was burned at the stake) for doctrines we hold dear. Yes, the Reformed churches of the Reformation, bar none, persecuted people for specifically holding to believers baptism (whether by immersion or not). And we do owe a debt to them for several of the doctrines for which they fought and brought to light.

But we also owe a debt to the Reformers. For one, the work of the Radical Reformation would not have been possible without the Reformation itself. When you say salvation by faith alone, unless you mean salvation by faith accompanied by verifiable external works, then you are leaning more to the Reformers than to baptistic churches. There is absolutely no doubt that Baptist theology today is indebted to the Reformers. In truth, much of our doctrine also owes a debt (even though we don’t like it) to several within the earlier Catholic Church.

The true church is not a collection of doctrines. The true local church is a community of believers that despite their flawed human understanding and inconsistent theologies believe the gospel of Jesus Christ and are reborn. True church is not defined by dominational doctrine - it is defined by being "in Christ." No church in history (to include New Testament churches) have ever been completely without error or misunderstanding.

 

[TCassidy]

I think the key to understanding this issue lies, as with most such discussions, with your definition of "Baptist."

If you believe "Baptist" to be a denominational name then Rippon is correct. Baptists began in England in the early 17th century (with some activity on the continent).

If you believe "Baptist" is a denominational identity then it is quite likely that churches that bear a spiritual kinship to present day baptists may have existed all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history. Either independently or within the ranks of the established church(es).

But bear in mind that none of those churches was in 100% agreement with us today just as no two baptist churches today agree together 100%. Today there are Reformed Baptists and Arminian Baptists. There are bible believing baptists and there are baptists that accept higher criticism. There are baptists which only admit members who have been baptized by immersion upon credible testimony of faith and those that accept sprinkling and pouring in infancy as sufficient.

But under all of that, representatives of those churches are genuinely born again. Probably not all, but a sufficient number to have preserved those scriptural doctrines down through the ages. And today we have "the faith once delivered to the saints."

 

[thatbrian]

I do not deny that God has people outside of Baptist churches, but maintain only Baptist churches are of they type of true apostolic churches.

Wow! You almost sound like a Roman Catholic there.

You seem to be saying that others, such as Presbyterians *might* have a few genuine Christians within their walls. I'm I misunderstanding you?

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Wow! You almost sound like a Roman Catholic there.

You seem to be saying that others, such as Presbyterians *might* have a few genuine Christians within their walls. I'm I misunderstanding you?

Hi Brother,

I actually would agree with the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1644 and 1689 both of which have a lot in common with the Westminster Confession of Faith that Presbyterians PCA adhere to. We were discussing what are the characteristics of a New Testament apostolic church, not if there are believers outside of such churches. I don't know what I said that lead you to the conclusion that I was contending their "might" be a "few" genuine Christians in your particular denomination. I can only surmise you made that extrapolation on your own because you concluded that many churches today do not meet the characteristics Hassel listed. I do not believe that their might be a "few" genuine Christians within the PCA, nor did I say such on this thread. In that regards, I can only say I agree with most of their Westminster Confession of Faith, however I do not speculate on how many of them are true believers, only the Lord knows that and it is none of my business.

God bless,

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

Brother Joe,


We know that believers baptism, and even adult baptism by immersion, occurred before the Baptist denomination came about..

Hi Brother Jon,

Baptists are not a denomination and they did not "come about" (unless you are referring the constitution of the first Baptist church in the apostolic age). I will agree with you that the name "Baptist" in referring to such churches has not been throughout all history, nor did they refer to themselves by such a name prior to the 1500/1600s. Baptists have gone by many names, "Among the persecuted people of God have been the Novatians, Donatists, Cathari, Paterines, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, Henericans, Arnoldists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, Mennonites and baptists, nearly all of whom were occasionally designated Anabaptist or re-baptizers by their enemies, because they disregarded infant or unregenerate baptism, and baptize all adults, whether previously baptized or not, who, upon a credible profession of faith, applied to them for the membership in their churches-thus insisting upon a spiritual or regenerated church membership, the First and most important mark of the apostolic church. " (Source Hassel, History of the Church of God).

But we also owe a debt to the Reformers. For one, the work of the Radical Reformation would not have been possible without the Reformation itself. When you say salvation by faith alone, unless you mean salvation by faith accompanied by verifiable external works, then you are leaning more to the Reformers than to baptistic churches. There is absolutely no doubt that Baptist theology today is indebted to the Reformers.

I agree the reformers helped rediscover many of the doctrines that Baptist lost site of and the reformers reemphasized or perhaps we may even say "rediscovered", that being mainly the five points of the doctrines of grace.

Brother Joe

 

[BrotherJoseph]

I think the key to understanding this issue lies, as with most such discussions, with your definition of "Baptist."

If you believe "Baptist" to be a denominational name then Rippon is correct. Baptists began in England in the early 17th century (with some activity on the continent).

If you believe "Baptist" is a denominational identity then it is quite likely that churches that bear a spiritual kinship to present day baptists may have existed all down through the ages of ecclesiastical history. Either independently or within the ranks of the established church(es).

But bear in mind that none of those churches was in 100% agreement with us today just as no two baptist churches today agree together 100%. Today there are Reformed Baptists and Arminian Baptists. There are bible believing baptists and there are baptists that accept higher criticism. There are baptists which only admit members who have been baptized by immersion upon credible testimony of faith and those that accept sprinkling and pouring in infancy as sufficient.

But under all of that, representatives of those churches are genuinely born again. Probably not all, but a sufficient number to have preserved those scriptural doctrines down through the ages. And today we have "the faith once delivered to the saints."

I agree brother.

 

[JonC]

Hi Brother Jon,

Baptists are not a denomination and they did not "come about" (unless you are referring the constitution of the first Baptist church in the apostolic age). I will agree with you that the name "Baptist" in referring to such churches has not been throughout all history, nor did they refer to themselves by such a name prior to the 1500/1600s. Baptists have gone by many names, "Among the persecuted people of God have been the Novatians, Donatists, Cathari, Paterines, Paulicians, Petrobrusians, Henericans, Arnoldists, Albigenses, Waldenses, Lollards, Mennonites and baptists, nearly all of whom were occasionally designated Anabaptist or re-baptizers by their enemies, because they disregarded infant or unregenerate baptism, and baptize all adults, whether previously baptized or not, who, upon a credible profession of faith, applied to them for the membership in their churches-thus insisting upon a spiritual or regenerated church membership, the First and most important mark of the apostolic church. " (Source Hassel, History of the Church of God).




I agree the reformers helped rediscover many of the doctrines that Baptist lost site of and the reformers reemphasized or perhaps we may even say "rediscovered", that being mainly the five points of the doctrines of grace.

Brother Joe

Thank you, Joe, for taking the time to explain your understanding. I am familiar with the position, and I hope that you also understand mine.

Here are some issues I have with your conclusions. You are tracing Baptists through history under several names. I do not know if you are aware, but Donatists believed that baptism was sacrament and that the effectiveness of sacraments depend on the moral character of the minister. Catharism was a heretical dualist movement within the Catholic Church that held god of the OT was evil, where as the God of the NT was good. Paulicians distinguished between the God that made creation and the God that made human souls (matter is evil, spirit is good). Petrobrusians did indeed teach that baptism follows repentance, but they also rejected the entire Old Testament as Scripture.

So while you look to these churches as exhibiting the true marks of a church because of similar doctrine, I look at those stark differences that most here would call "unorthodox." What you are doing, in my view, is taking a few non-essential doctrines and elevating them above more important understandings.

 

[Rippon]

I don't understand why Baptists, which are so different from these "true churches" conclude that a few common traits on secondary issues outweigh differences on larger issues (justification, atonement, extent of soul liberty, etc). So my question remains, why those things and not others?

I agree with everything but the listing of "soul liberty" as a major issue.