The limits of Baptists?

[menageriekeeper]

I do however agree with what I believe was the point of your statement, and what you posted after that.....that being that the fullness of the Gospel message was not revealed in Acts, or even in the gospels, but rather in the Epistles, and most specifically, the Epistles of Paul.

May I ask what you consider to be the "fullness" of the Gospel?

for the OP:

Hmmm, the most limiting thing about being Baptist? Hmmm, right off the bat, I can't think of of a thing. Baptists are sort of all inclusive. You don't like a somber, quiet, formal worship service, the next congregation down the street is lively and loud.

Calvinist? Got Baptist churches that hold to the doctrines of grace on the left corner just past the Free Will Church.

Like one that holds the KJV in high regard and holds to TULIP? Yep they can be found around to.

In short most Baptists are held together by the simple idea of salvation in Christ alone combined with practicing water baptism and the Lord's supper as signs of obedience and honor. Once you get beyond those three, you can find a congregation that fits you. If you don't believe in salvation through Christ alone, well then you just aren't believing the Word. You can any denomination in the world and not believe the Word. Why pick on Baptists?

 

[annsni]

Well, just thinking quickly here....when people were saved in the early church, was it an easy conversion? Did people then go on their way to work, church, see their friends, watch the football game? Or did they then face persecution and possible death? I think in that time, the conversions were much less likely to be whim conversions because people really counted the cost at that time and came to the Lord with a pure heart.

Nowadays, it seems that there are those who are more than happy to get their fire insurance or want that great life that being a Christian "promises". I think it IS important to wait a little longer nowadays to disciple a new believer and to help them fully understand what their conversion means. In that way, they can truthfully decide that this is their life change and that they wish to follow Jesus' command to be baptized. Being baptized right away doesn't guarantee a better believer than waiting, being discipled, then being baptized.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Baptist beliefs and practices are the closest to my own denomination of any other church ... I have attended quite a few Southern Baptist worship services and really enjoyed them a lot.

Me too (with the possible exception of some Lutheran or Reformed churches).

Interesting .... Bob and I are definitely on the opposite ends of the spectrum. Yet somehow we both see Baptists as being close to our own denomination.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

I went to school in Abilene, TX and just so you know, the Bible Conference at ACU is just like any denominational meeting that I have ever been to.

Yeah, Abilene has a long-standing and well deserved reputation for being pretty liberal. They've slipped a long way from where they started. I've heard alot of denominational stuff has crept in there.

CoC's are just as much a denomination as Methodists and Baptists are (just because you say otherwise doesn't prove anything...if it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and looks like a duck...its a duck!).

To be fair, your saying the church of Christ is a denomination doesn't prove anything, either. If it is, it's been forced into it by the denominational world. It is one only in the sense that truth is divided from error.

Also CoC's are just as disconnected from the church in the NT as every other Christian group in the world is (sorry, again, just because you say so doesn't make it so...otherwise you would all be living together, preaching the gospel on the streets, sharing all your possessions, etc...since you guys don't, you're not like the church in Acts).

To my knowledge, none of our brethren make any claim to "church succession" back to the 1st century, if that's what you mean. I know the Baptists have tried to trace their heritage back to apostolic times in the past with little or no success.

As for being like the church in Acts, we don't have apostles or possess miraculous spiritual gifts, either. We simply teach what they taught, and worship as they did, seeking only to do those things authorized by the New Testament.

Certainly there are differences between the 1st century church and that of today. We don't preach as often as we ought, though we do share with each other as there is need (Acts 2:45).

The desire and aim of the Restoration Movement was to get rid of all doctrines and practices that were not authorized by the New Testament. Lots of things had to be abandoned such as infant baptism, instrumental music, and unscriptural congregational organization. If there are areas where you think we have come short, let's talk about them. Insofar as we have succeeded, why not join us?

 

[jniles]

Quote:
Originally Posted by D28Guy:
I do however agree with what I believe was the point of your statement, and what you posted after that.....that being that the fullness of the Gospel message was not revealed in Acts, or even in the gospels, but rather in the Epistles, and most specifically, the Epistles of Paul.

May I ask what you consider to be the "fullness" of the Gospel?

for the OP:

If I may be so bold D28Guy was responding to my assertion that there is no Gospel in Acts PERIOD!

The book of Acts is in fact the story of the downfall of a nation when they rejected the Gospel of the Kingdom and their Messiah and the recruiting to the Apostle of the Gentiles. Also documenting his efforts to bring the Gospel of Grace to the Jew then to the Gentile and how the Church as the Body of Christ came about. You will not find that Gospel of Grace or the Church before Paul. The Gospel of Grace I Cor 15: 1-4 is the only gospel for anyone today.

D28Guy He may in fact speak for himself and certainly correct me too, but most likely he truly understands who and what the scriptures were about and who they were addressed to for starters. The Gospels do have the "gospel of the Kingdom" (repent and be baptized for the remission of sin) in them as is the account of Peter in Acts 2:38 to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins. That in fact was what one had to do at the time to be saved and demonstrate their faithful obedience, just as while under the law they were required to offer sacrifices in addition to faith. Both of those are in fact faith + works.

In Acts 2: 38 who was Peter talking to? Was it the church? Was it gentiles? Can you actually find any church ground in the gospels? If one is honest, upon examination he will find the gospels were about Christ's ministry to the the lost sheep of Israel and not Gentiles. The Gospels are old testament as Christ and the twelve are observing the law of Moses. Is this church ground?

The Acts is in fact a history book and not intended to instruct in doctrine or gospel. The gospel of the Kingdom is the only gospel there is in the Gospels and that was for the Jew and it continued through Chapter 8 of Acts. It no longer applies today! Sorry all RCC, their offspring and Campellites, but is the way is was. If you will check it out Peter slides out of sight while the transition to Paul's Gospel of Grace takes place. Later he is totally rebuked by Paul for his siding with some Jewish believers that are insisting the Gentiles be Judaized. We don't hear from Peter much after that, and he is certainly no longer the leader of the pack going forward.

It is after Paul comes on the scene and has a mystery revealed to him directly from Christ that his gospel, the Gospel of Grace is finally revealed and presented in his letters to the church. That gospel is to and for everyone! There is no other for us today. The old gospel of the Kingdom which was not on church ground is not for us and never was for the Church. It was in preparation for the King to take His throne and all Jews had to believe in Him and be baptized so they could serve as priests in the kingdom.

The economy changes and the letters of Paul are the "ONLY" place church doctrine is found and the first place we find "The Church" as the Body of Christ with the "Gospel that saves you", "Paul's Gospel" The Gospel of Grace or Faith + Nothing. Those letters of his are also further broken down into his journeys and his imprisonment letters. If you read mail addressed to some one else you will become confused. Paul's letters are to the church it is our mail. The later letters beginning with Hebrews are for Kingdom preparation again as He is coming back. These letters Hebrews through Revelation are for that period when the church is no longer on earth. The gospel of the Kingdom is again in effect but with one caveat. One must hold on till the end. One is not given eternal life then as we are today with faith + nothing. But then they must believe on his name and hold on by resisting the mark of the beast.

In a big nutshell that is the way it all is laid out. And we baptists just like the confused RCC, COC and 10,000 different kinds of baptists tend to read other peoples mail then take it and build a church on it. This not only limits baptists but all those that do not understand the "fullness" of the gospel which is in fact the Gospel of Grace (Faith + Nothing) and no other as all others are "another gospel" and not for us today.

Later,

John the Blabtist

 

[D28guy]

menageriekeeper,

I said...

"I do however agree with what I believe was the point of your statement, and what you posted after that.....that being that the fullness of the Gospel message was not revealed in Acts, or even in the gospels, but rather in the Epistles, and most specifically, the Epistles of Paul."

And you asked of me....

"May I ask what you consider to be the "fullness" of the Gospel?"

While Jesus was walking this earth, He was walking during the last years of what is known as the old covenant. John the Baptist was the last old covenant prophet. During this time, Jesus at various times gave brief *glimpses* of what was too come, but He didnt give much. Nicodemous. The woman at the well. etc etc. Many times he would speak in parables, or speak figuratively. Such as the teaching regarding the fact that you can not put new wine in old wineskins. New wine must be put in new wineskins. Referring of course to the fact that the New Covenant is NOT an extension of the old *legalistic* way of God dealing with His people. It would be something...brand...new. Later, in the book of Acts we find more *glimpses* of the gospel...but no exhaustive teaching.

He even told His followers at one time....

"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language, but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father"

During Christs time on earth, and during the book of Acts period, the gospel was obscurely given at times, and at other times showing up more clearly, but not elaborated on.

Although not the only one, the primary instrument that God used for the purpose of exhaustively teaching the church His great New Coveant truths was the Apostle Paul. Paul was the instrument God used to thunder home to His people the New Coveant gospel of justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

You will find asolutely nothing in the old testament, the 4 gospels, or the book of Acts that even comes remotely close to the volume and depth of teaching that we what we find in the Epistles...in regard to clearly, forcefully, and exhaustively explaining the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And the most used instrument God chose in this regard is Paul. The doctrinal epistles of Paul...Romans, both Corinthians, Galacians, Ephesians, etc....are the MOUNTAIN TOPS of Christian new covenant gospel truth and doctrine. In those Epistles we find reams and reams of exhaustive teaching. Paragraph after paragraph after paragraph. Page after page after page. Book after book after book.

What was alluded to, spoken figuratively of, hinted at, and briefly given in the gospels and acts regarding the gospel...is finally THUNDERED home exhaustively, in the epistles

Just as we read the old testament *in the light of* the new testament, we should also read the gospels *in the light of* the epistles.

Hope this helps,

Mike

 

[trustitl]

Hmmm, the most limiting thing about being Baptist? Hmmm, right off the bat, I can't think of of a thing. Baptists are sort of all inclusive. You don't like a somber, quiet, formal worship service, the next congregation down the street is lively and loud.

Calvinist? Got Baptist churches that hold to the doctrines of grace on the left corner just past the Free Will Church.

Like one that holds the KJV in high regard and holds to TULIP? Yep they can be found around to.

In short most Baptists are held together by the simple idea of salvation in Christ alone combined with practicing water baptism and the Lord's supper as signs of obedience and honor. Once you get beyond those three, you can find a congregation that fits you. If you don't believe in salvation through Christ alone, well then you just aren't believing the Word. You can any denomination in the world and not believe the Word. Why pick on Baptists?

You are very accurate in your description of the baptists. However, I think the fact that they are divided over all these carnal issues is what is so limiting to them.

Once you get beyond those three, you can find a congregation that fits you.

This is what shows how limited they are. They go beyond those three. They should stop there. I'm not picking on baptists, the question was asked in regards to baptists on the Baptist Board. This is the case in every denomination I know of.

 

[cowboymatt]

The desire and aim of the Restoration Movement was to get rid of all doctrines and practices that were not authorized by the New Testament. Lots of things had to be abandoned such as infant baptism, instrumental music, and unscriptural congregational organization. If there are areas where you think we have come short, let's talk about them. Insofar as we have succeeded, why not join us?

But see, that's just the problem. The CoC focuses on a few passages while neglecting others. For instance, the NT is not entirely clear about the role of baptism in salvation: some passages seem to assume that it is required while others plainly do not.

Further, from all of my experiences with the CoC in Texas, the charismatic gifts are not practiced, which is a glaring difference with the NT. Most CoC's that I know pull the Baptist line here: "they ended with the Apostolic age." Prove it! There are still miracle healings and many other charismatic happenings in our world today!

Also, arguing from silence about instruments is not convincing. CoC's typically say that since the NT doesn't mention musical instruments, then we should not use them. Two problems: 1) The NT is not a collection of documents to tell us how to worship; instead the NT contains personal communique between people and churches, stories about Jesus and the start of the Church, and a few theological reflections. The fact that musical instruments is not mentioned has more to do with the genre of the literature than with the actual first-century reality. 2) There are many other things that are not mentioned in the NT that CoC's utilized in worship: pulpits, pews, Bibles in English, microphones, church buildings (as opposed to house churches), etc, etc.

As far as the CoC being a denomination, for all intents and purposes it is. There is organization, shared doctrine, annual meetings, etc, etc. From the outside looking in, the CoC is a denomination, despite what members of the CoC may think.


EDIT~~One more thing, why do we hold the first-century church in such an exalted light? They had problems. Read through Acts, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Philippians 3-4 and you will see many issues, problems, conflicts, etc. This repristination of the first-century church is simply ludicrous. The first-century church had problems just like we do today. Why don't we aim for unity instead of aiming for emulating the first-century church?

 

[lbaker]

I grew up in the church of Christ and was a part of the Restoration Movement (what we Campbellites call ourselves) ;-) until a couple of years ago. We've been part of a Baptist church since then.

A few things I think would make Baptist churches better:

Stop assuming that because folks in the coC connect baptism and conversion they must believe in baptismal regeneration. To quote (more or less) a Baptist author: "Baptists seem to be more interested in arguing about what baptism doesn't do than in studying what it actually is for."

Be more open minded about End Times ideas. Don't be so married to the Millenial position. This leads to a sort of hysterical "Jesus is coming next week" and "so and so is the Beast" attitude.

Be happy - lots of Baptists we know seem to be burdened down with guilt. Even the Sunday School material seems to be constantly harping that we can never witness enough, or be good enough.

Be more relaxed and free in Praise and Worship - the church we attend now is fairly progressive but nowhere near like AOG churches we have visited. We do have good music though, I must admit. (I'm the drummer).

hmmmm, guess that's all for now.

 

[DHK]

I grew up in the church of Christ and was a part of the Restoration Movement (what we Campbellites call ourselves) ;-) until a couple of years ago. We've been part of a Baptist church since then.

A few things I think would make Baptist churches better:

Stop assuming that because folks in the coC connect baptism and conversion they must believe in baptismal regeneration. To quote (more or less) a Baptist author: "Baptists seem to be more interested in arguing about what baptism doesn't do than in studying what it actually is for."

I have had extended conversations with COC people on this board, some of whom don't post anymore. I was saved out of Roman Catholicism, and wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved.
This particular COC poster said that during those intervening two years that I was not saved, and concluded that because I didn't believe that my salvation wasn't connected to baptism that I am still not saved. That is clearly baptismal regeneration.
How can we conclude anything less about the COC??

 

[lbaker]

I have had extended conversations with COC people on this board, some of whom don't post anymore. I was saved out of Roman Catholicism, and wasn't baptized until two years after I was saved.
This particular COC poster said that during those intervening two years that I was not saved, and concluded that because I didn't believe that my salvation wasn't connected to baptism that I am still not saved. That is clearly baptismal regeneration.
How can we conclude anything less about the COC??

That would be like saying all Baptists are Calvinists. Believe me, that isn't what I believed when I went to a coC and I know plenty of others who feel the same way. Even with someone like you referred to, I'm not sure that would qualify as believing in baptismal regeneration, which I take to mean baptism acting to save someone independent of saving faith.

 

[cowboymatt]

Isn't baptismal regeneration the reason that Campbell left the Baptist church, specifically that he was teaching this and the church members didn't like it?

 

[lbaker]

Isn't baptismal regeneration the reason that Campbell left the Baptist church, specifically that he was teaching this and the church members didn't like it?

Well I suppose it depends on who wrote the History. ;-)

My understanding was that the Baptists left Campbell, because he included baptism as part of conversion, although he didn't believe it was absolutely necessary for salvation. He and his father were immersed by a Baptist preacher, BTW. I think he was falsly accused of teaching baptismal regeneration, at least as I understand the term. In the early days there was quite a bit of discussion on uniting the Baptists and coC, up through the 1860's anyway.

Isn't baptismal regeneration what is used to describe infant baptism, a baptism that supposedly saves separate and apart from faith?

 

[jniles]

But see, that's just the problem. The CoC focuses on a few passages while neglecting others. For instance, the NT is not entirely clear about the role of baptism in salvation: some passages seem to assume that it is required while others plainly do not.

Cowboy Matt have you considered the fact there is more than one gospel and that the "Gospel of the Kingdom" as preached by Jesus and the twelve did in fact require Jews (since that is the only people they were preaching to) to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins exactly like Peter tells them. Have you considered this was a requirement of all Jews so they could serve as priests in His Kingdom right then and right there if only all of them had believed, not to mention a demonstration of faith? However can you find any place where it is preached to the "Church" the "Body of Christ"? I can only find the "Gospel of Grace" given to the "Body of Christ" which is stated over and over again without any reference to baptism and best summed up in I Cor 15: 1-4. Paul definitely makes it crystal that it is not required and he makes no bones about it.

Further, from all of my experiences with the CoC in Texas, the charismatic gifts are not practiced, which is a glaring difference with the NT. Most CoC's that I know pull the Baptist line here: "they ended with the Apostolic age." Prove it! There are still miracle healings and many other charismatic happenings in our world today! . . . . . . . . . .

I have noticed that there are no instances where Gentiles had miracles done for them. Yes certainly to them but always at the hand of the Living God for Israel.

Have you noticed the first time we really get "signs and wonders" it was the burning bush for Moses and that was because he did not believe? He, Moses, an Israelite required a sign, a miracle, if you will. Israelites always required a sign. It continues with the nation of Israel right through the gospels and into Paul's ministry.

But did you also notice in the case of Paul each time he performed a miracle for whom it was performed? Did he once perform one for his Gentiles and the Gentile churches? Is there a single record of a miracle being performed for the Body of Christ? Did you notice the miracles performed by Paul stop when he finally no longer goes to the Jews? Could it be when the remnant of the Jews was saved and he no longer went to them that signs ceased for him? Did Paul not tell us Jews require a sign but Gentiles require knowledge? Perhaps that is an explanation as to why signs and wonders stand starkly absent from the "Body of Christ" in the gentile churches.

I think if one studies diligently he will find no miracles done by the True God for the "Body of Christ" after that which is perfect was here. After the Word of God was in place the Body of Christ does not see signs and wonders. Not to say they don't happen. But does Paul not tell us to investigate anything being taught that he has not taught us? Where does he teach us about signs and wonders for the Church? Does he not tell us even if it is from heaven or an angel we are to check it in the light of his message?

Now if you include languages in the signs and wonders part I must again ask, for what purpose was it used? Was it ever used for believers? It is always one preaching in his language and those "men of Israel" from many nations that were gathered and they heard those preaching in their own language so they could understand the gospel. It is not used for any other reason in any case. Groanings are not public events or circus side shows but they are in fact prayer when only God understands what your spirit needs and you don't know how to say it.

The stuff that goes on in churches from laughing, running, babbling and the like is in fact non-scriptural. Slain in the spirit! Yes by all means it is a spirit! As are all the hucksters selling snake oil healings but the spirit if investigated is doubtfully one of the true Living God!

That certainly is not to say it is wrong to be happy in the Lord and rejoicing gleefully, unlike most SBC churches. But it takes all kinds to reach all types of people. Some love the knowledge of the Word of God, some could care less as they just Love God and want to praise him. Go for it and tell those lost about our good deal in Christ Jesus because we have something for everyone. But watch out there is "another gospel", not Paul's, being preached and it is total error, completely a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

 

[cowboymatt]

I have noticed that there are no instances where Gentiles had miracles done for them. Yes certainly to them but always at the hand of the Living God for Israel.

Have you noticed the first time we really get "signs and wonders" it was the burning bush for Moses and that was because he did not believe? He, Moses, an Israelite required a sign, a miracle, if you will. Israelites always required a sign. It continues with the nation of Israel right through the gospels and into Paul's ministry.

But did you also notice in the case of Paul each time he performed a miracle for whom it was performed? Did he once perform one for his Gentiles and the Gentile churches? Is there a single record of a miracle being performed for the Body of Christ? Did you notice the miracles performed by Paul stop when he finally no longer goes to the Jews? Could it be when the remnant of the Jews was saved and he no longer went to them that signs ceased for him? Did Paul not tell us Jews require a sign but Gentiles require knowledge? Perhaps that is an explanation as to why signs and wonders stand starkly absent from the "Body of Christ" in the gentile churches.

I think if one studies diligently he will find no miracles done by the True God for the "Body of Christ" after that which is perfect was here. After the Word of God was in place the Body of Christ does not see signs and wonders. Not to say they don't happen. But does Paul not tell us to investigate anything being taught that he has not taught us? Where does he teach us about signs and wonders for the Church? Does he not tell us even if it is from heaven or an angel we are to check it in the light of his message?

Now if you include languages in the signs and wonders part I must again ask, for what purpose was it used? Was it ever used for believers? It is always one preaching in his language and those "men of Israel" from many nations that were gathered and they heard those preaching in their own language so they could understand the gospel. It is not used for any other reason in any case. Groanings are not public events or circus side shows but they are in fact prayer when only God understands what your spirit needs and you don't know how to say it.

The stuff that goes on in churches from laughing, running, babbling and the like is in fact non-scriptural. Slain in the spirit! Yes by all means it is a spirit! As are all the hucksters selling snake oil healings but the spirit if investigated is doubtfully one of the true Living God!

That certainly is not to say it is wrong to be happy in the Lord and rejoicing gleefully, unlike most SBC churches. But it takes all kinds to reach all types of people. Some love the knowledge of the Word of God, some could care less as they just Love God and want to praise him. Go for it and tell those lost about our good deal in Christ Jesus because we have something for everyone. But watch out there is "another gospel", not Paul's, being preached and it is total error, completely a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

As for Paul teaching about signs and wonders in the Church, he mentions healing and speaking in tongues in a gathering with an interpreter (otherwise there's no point). And Paul was writing these things to the church in Corinth, a church that was surely made up of primarily Gentiles. So Paul did in fact talk about signs and wonders.

As far as Gentiles and miracles is concerned, read Matthew 15:21-28 where Jesus explicitly heals a non-Israelite woman's daughter.

 

[jniles]

. . . . . . . As far as Gentiles and miracles is concerned, read Matthew 15:21-28 where Jesus explicitly heals a non-Israelite woman's daughter.

You and I both know that what Jesus did was not on "Church Ground" was not a doctrine of the Church and in fact is one of only two times He is recorded of talking to a Gentile. Both received their requests. But nothing in either case is for the church and was not done to convince any Gentile of anything.

You ignored a lot of questions. Why would you not consider them?

Later,

John

 

[cowboymatt]

I "ignored" some of the questions because they either are easily answered (such as baptism as only a requirement of only Jews...the Ethiopian in Acts disproves that) or they are confused (such as your idea of the gospel of grace being preached to the Church...if one is a part of the church then hasn't s/he already accepted grace?).

And according to your distinction, none of the miracles Jesus performed were on "Church ground," since the Church did not yet exist.

I have found your argumentation to be like that of many CoCers that I know. They try to get their opponents bogged down in minutiae so that the real issues never get addressed. Every CoC person I have ever met in person believes that salvation comes through faith and baptism, every CoCer that I've met in person thinks that the way that they do things is the only viable way, and every CoCer that I have met in person denies that the CoC is a denomination. None of these things are entirely true and every CoCer that I have met tries to divert the conversation away from these issues, which are the central ones. I see the same sort of thing in your long post; you tried to divert me from pointing out the obvious problems with the base-level thinking of the CoC.

 

[jniles]

Forgive me I was mistaken. I really thought you were curious about why the signs and miracles are not a part of the Body of Christ and not practiced by any denomination with sound doctrine. The Church of Christ has no sound doctrine that I have been able to find.

Suffice it for me to say yes the Church of Christ is in fact very much a real denomination, never existing before the Cambells. They were baptized by a so called baptist church because they strangely could not find any existing churches like the one they wanted to start.

There is no such thing as a charasmatic gift in scripture.

And baptism has nothing to do with anyone's salvation today.

Later,

John the Baptist

 

[cowboymatt]

There are no charismatic gifts? "Charismatic" comes from the actual word that Paul uses to describe the gifts: charismata.

 

[jniles]

There are no charismatic gifts? "Charismatic" comes from the actual word that Paul uses to describe the gifts: charismata.

So what's your point?