The limits of Baptists?

[cowboymatt]

You said that there's no such thing as a charismatic gift in Scripture and, in fact, there is. You are wrong. That's my point.

 

[David Lamb]

I was a Baptist for 30 years until I could no longer swallow the premil pretrib rapture stuff. Also wanted to swallow alcohol for attitude adjustment. Dispensational theology doesn't compute. Covenant theology does.

By no means all baptists believe in "the premil pretrib rapture stuff", and there are baptists and baptist churches that hold to covenant theology. The website http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/apologetics/Covenant Theology & Justification/ligoncovt.htm includes these words:

“The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct, and you the grace to receive instruction on this vital subject.” Who said this? C.H. Spurgeon — the great English Baptist preacher!


​

I'm not sure precisely what you meant by your words about alcohol and attitude adjustment, but you seem to be under the mistaken idea that all baptists are teetotal.


Because baptist churches are organised on the local church level, there is a wide diversity among such churches. Some may be premillennial, and believe in a pretribulation rapture (but not all do). Some may be dispensational (but not all are). Some may be teetotal, (but not all are).

 

[jniles]

You said that there's no such thing as a charismatic gift in Scripture and, in fact, there is. You are wrong. That's my point.

You and I both know that there are no "Charismatic Gifts" described as such in scripture. Apparently hundreds or even thousands of translators just missed it somewhere, but we are supposed to accept your claim that it is in there. We are not talking Greek, German or anything but English. No reputable version has any reference to "Charismatic" much less "Charismatic Gifts". You and I both and anyone else reading your statement also know what you meant when you claimed the "Charismatic Gifts" (in English) to be real but ignored by baptists (persisting in our error) and thus limiting us, and we were not talking Greek!

I will not argue with you as it serves no useful purpose. You apparently have no desire to teach me, or perhaps anyone else anything. If you should change your mind about that I would always want to learn, as I am teachable, when the logical evidence of scripture is presented. But to hang wild statements and claims out, for those that are earnestly wanting to learn something, devoid of any real and proven knowledge of the facts is folly and silly to be sure.

Tis doubtful either of our responses have been constructive or helpful for anyone really wanting to learn something about why baptists are limited. Other than our exchange shows everyone the biggest reason we are so limited, but that is certainly not just a baptist thing.

Later,

John

 

[DHK]

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.

The COC, as far as I was taught (on this board) believes that there are five steps to salvation. Any one step that is missing and you are not saved. In order to be saved you must: believe + repent + confess + have faith + baptism = salvation. (I may have one of those wrong as I am going by memory). But there were five steps, five requirements to salvation, all of which had to be in place to be saved. Baptism regeneration is simply that baptism is required in order to be saved. The RCC practice it. Without baptism you cannot be saved. The Oneness Pentecostal practice it. They say that without the evidence of speaking in tongues and baptism you cannot be saved.
There are many religions that require baptism for salvation. That is baptismal salvation, and it is not always connected with infants.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

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.

If this were the case, humanity would be left in an undesirable position. The whole aim of the NT is to show mankind how to obtain a home in heaven. If it were unclear, one of two things would have to be true:

1. God is cruel, and really doesn't want men to be saved, so He gave us an unclear guide, or

2. God is incapable of effectively communicating with His creation.

Of couse, neither of these statements is true. I would argue that the NT is crystal clear on the meaning, method, and purpose of baptism.

The passages that speak about baptism are what we need to consult when we're speaking about baptism. Sounds obvious, I know, but lots of people start out talking about baptism and then refer to verses that speak of faith, grace, etc. Those passages are improtant, too, but one cannot overrule or cancel out another.

One very clear verse is Mark 16:16.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

That's about as plain as they come.

Another is Acts 2:38.

Act 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

These believers were told to repent and be baptized for (into, or toward) the remission of sins. Again, this is pretty plain to me.

We could look at Acts 22:16 as well.

Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

This is spoken to Saul three days after he saw the risen Christ, and he has spent that time fasting and praying, yet he was still in his sins.

In Romans 6:3-5 we find a wealth of info on baptism.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

In 6:3 we see we are baptized into Christ, where all spiritual blessings are (Eph 1:3).
In 6:4, baptism is described as a burial and a raising up again. Immersion is the method.
And in 6:5, being planted in the likeness of Jesus' death is a condition to our being in the likeness of His resurrection.

Moving on to Gal 3:27.

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

It is in baptism that one enters into, or puts on Christ.

In Eph 4:5

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

There is only one baptism that unites us in the unity of the Spirit. Many insist upon two or more.

In Col 2:12 we read,

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Again, baptism is described as a burial and a raising up again.

And in 1 Pet 3:21,

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

It is plainly stated that baptism (not baptism only) doth also now save us. If not from sin, then from what?

There are others of course, but these should suffice to set forth the necessity of baptism for salvation. Counter point is welcome.

 

[Darron Steele]

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....

Scripture is clear about the role and effect of faith on salvation.

Jesus Christ said of Himself at John 3:18 "He that believeth on him is not| condemned" (ASV|ESV).

Peter confirmed this in a sermon about Jesus Christ at Acts 10:43 " To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins" (ASV).

We can be sure that any person who has believed upon Christ will not be condemned, and will have salvation from sins. I take these passages at face value.

Scripture is also clear that any believer upon Jesus Christ should be baptized.

This thread's topic is not the role of salvation in baptism. Cowboymatt indicated uncertainty on what Scripture teaches regarding this subject. Let us leave it at that. This thread's topic is not this.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

I had to break this thing up to keep my reply from exceeding character limits. Sorry if I get too wordy.

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!

On this topic I am in agreement with the "Baptist line". Of course, just saying something doesn't make it true, so let me show you why I believe as I do.

In Acts 8 we find Phillip going down to Samaria and preaching the gospel of Christ to them.

Act 8:5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them.
Act 8:6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.
Act 8:7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed.

Phillip was endowed with miraculous spiritual gifts. His working of them confirmed the gospel message to his hearers (Mark 16:20).

Act 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

According to Jesus in Mark 16:16, these people were saved, and I think you would agree.

Act 8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
Act 8:15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
Act 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

They had become Christians, washed from their sins, but the Spirit had not yet fallen upon them.

Act 8:17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
Act 8:18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,

I believe this to be the imparting of "charismatic" gifts of the Spirit. In Acts 19 there is a similar case.

Act 19:6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

These men had believed and were baptized prior to this.

Looking back to Acts 8:18, notice that the Spirit was given through the laying of of the apostle's hands. This is important.

One of the qualifications for being an apostle was to have seen the risen Christ.

Act 1:21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
Act 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

In 1 Cor 15, Paul says that he was the "last of all" to see the resurrected Christ.

1Co 15:8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

Paul was the last person to ever see the risen Christ, thus the last person qualified to be an apostle. Since all the apostles are gone from this life, there are no more apostle's hands to lay on anyone. Since there are no more apostle's hands, miraculous gifts of the Spirt can no longer be given to men.

It's not that "charismatic" gifts are not practiced. They just aren't available anymore. They had a purpose (confirming the word - Mk 16:20), and that purpose has been fulfilled (Gal 3:17, Heb 2:3).

 

[Sgt. Fury]

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.

Actually, there is Biblical precedent for arguing from silence of the Scriptures. Two examples that come to mind are Lev 10 and Heb 7.

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

God had not expressly forbidden the fire they offered, He simply had not commanded it. He had been silent about it.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Judah had not been expressly forbidden from serving as priests. God had simply commanded that priests come from Levi. All others were automatically excluded.

A common line of reasoning used to defend the use of instruments in the worship of God is "the Bible doesn't say not to". It doesn't have to. It only has to tell us what God wants, not everything He doesn't want.

Why didn't Noah build a train? God didn't say not to...

One simply cannot employ musical instruments in faith, since the word of God is the source of faith, and it says nothing about musical instruments. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23).

 

[Sgt. Fury]

Concerning the use of pews, pulpits, songbooks, etc.

None of these things are additions to worship. None of these are actions. One does not sing and songbook. I cannot preach and microphone. During the sermon, the saints do not listen and pew, or listen and English Bible.

See what I mean?

And what good would a Bible in a language other than English do for English-speaking people? The Word is ineffective if one cannot understand it.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

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.

Again, if she is a denomination, she has been forced into it by those who departed from the Scriptures as their source of authority.

There is organization (Phil 1:1). There is supposed to be common doctrine (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:10). Departures from the doctrine of Christ are prohibited. I don't know about any annual meetings, though, only weekly ones for worship.

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?

Agreed, the 1st century church had it's share of problems. In the Bible, we also have apostolic instruction on how to correct those problems (2 Tim 3:16, 17). We don't seek to emulate the problems of the early church. We've got enough of our own! People today are just like they were back to the beginning of time. Fortunately, the word of God stands sure, and the correction given to those in the 1st century can still help us today.

True Christian unity must be based on what is written, not on what is not specifically prohibited. The seven "ones" of Eph 4 are usually more than most can get through without debate.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

This thread's topic is not the role of salvation in baptism. Cowboymatt indicated uncertainty on what Scripture teaches regarding this subject. Let us leave it at that. This thread's topic is not this.

Sorry man, I wasn't trying to hijack the thread. Matt and I were just talking. Just pretend we're not here.

 

[cowboymatt]

You and I both know that there are no "Charismatic Gifts" described as such in scripture. Apparently hundreds or even thousands of translators just missed it somewhere, but we are supposed to accept your claim that it is in there. We are not talking Greek, German or anything but English. No reputable version has any reference to "Charismatic" much less "Charismatic Gifts". You and I both and anyone else reading your statement also know what you meant when you claimed the "Charismatic Gifts" (in English) to be real but ignored by baptists (persisting in our error) and thus limiting us, and we were not talking Greek!

I will not argue with you as it serves no useful purpose. You apparently have no desire to teach me, or perhaps anyone else anything. If you should change your mind about that I would always want to learn, as I am teachable, when the logical evidence of scripture is presented. But to hang wild statements and claims out, for those that are earnestly wanting to learn something, devoid of any real and proven knowledge of the facts is folly and silly to be sure.

Tis doubtful either of our responses have been constructive or helpful for anyone really wanting to learn something about why baptists are limited. Other than our exchange shows everyone the biggest reason we are so limited, but that is certainly not just a baptist thing.

Later,

John

Hold on. Where did I say something incorrect? Just because something isn't in your English Bible doesn't mean that its not in the Greek. What language do you think the NT was written in? English? Nope. Greek, it was written in Greek.

Charisma or charismata, two forms of one of the Greek words for "gift," is found in Rom 1.11, 12.6; 1 Cor 12.9, 28, and 30-31. Thus, describing the gifts of the Spirit as "charismatic" is biblical. To deny this only shows an ignorance of Greek, which is correctable, and a lack of teachability, which you claimed you had.

 

[Darron Steele]

Actually, there is Biblical precedent for arguing from silence of the Scriptures. Two examples that come to mind are Lev 10 and Heb 7.

Lev 10:1 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not. Lev 10:2 And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.

God had not expressly forbidden the fire they offered, He simply had not commanded it. He had been silent about it.

Heb 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.

Judah had not been expressly forbidden from serving as priests. God had simply commanded that priests come from Levi. All others were automatically excluded.

A common line of reasoning used to defend the use of instruments in the worship of God is "the Bible doesn't say not to". It doesn't have to. It only has to tell us what God wants, not everything He doesn't want.

Why didn't Noah build a train? God didn't say not to...

One simply cannot employ musical instruments in faith, since the word of God is the source of faith, and it says nothing about musical instruments. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom 14:23).

Again, if she is a denomination, she has been forced into it by those who departed from the Scriptures as their source of authority.

There is organization (Phil 1:1). There is supposed to be common doctrine (Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 1:10). Departures from the doctrine of Christ are prohibited. I don't know about any annual meetings, though, only weekly ones for worship.



Agreed, the 1st century church had it's share of problems. In the Bible, we also have apostolic instruction on how to correct those problems (2 Tim 3:16, 17). We don't seek to emulate the problems of the early church. We've got enough of our own! People today are just like they were back to the beginning of time. Fortunately, the word of God stands sure, and the correction given to those in the 1st century can still help us today.

True Christian unity must be based on what is written, not on what is not specifically prohibited. The seven "ones" of Eph 4 are usually more than most can get through without debate.

Your premise in promoting your type of the Churches of Christ was addressed on this thread:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=45746
I was not convinced then, nor am I now. I would be interested in discussing what you think are `prohibition by silence' passages, and it would be neat to do it on another thread.

 

[Matt Black]

For me, the main limitations (as a former Baptist) were and are as follows:

1. Lack of sacramental grace or indeed the 'putting on of Christ' generally re sanctification

2. Lack of theological certainty produced by a combination of sola Scriptura, soul liberty and - and this is the one I never really got my head around - congregational autonomy on matters of doctrine.

 

[Whowillgo]

In my opinion, one of the biggest limitations of Baptists is the wide doctrinal views within the Baptist community. (Of course, the reason for this is the congregational view of the church, but it can - and does - present some problems.)

Today, being Baptist can mean almost anything. As a result, it means almost nothing. Here are some examples.

I have friends who attend Baptist churches that are Calvinistic. Others attend Baptist churches which are Arninian.

Some Baptist churches use various Bible translations. Others emphasize the KJV, while others mandate the KJV.

Some Baptist churches have women in leadership roles, even as deacons. Other Baptist churches abhor such practices.

Some Baptist churches preach against drinking wine - to the point of preaching that Jesus turned water in grape juice. Others leave this as a conscience issue.

And the list goes on.

My brother I believe you have given a quite an extensive list of what keeps Baptists from being regarded as limited. One of the things that brought me back to the Baptist church and into the office of Pastor was the fact that the local church under the leadership of our Lord must within itself identify the doctrinal stance it takes. Salvation by Grace and accountability of the individual is the common denominator of our denomination.