Traditional Baptist Beliefs

[Van]

Traditional Baptist churches "separated" from a church organization that was "top down" with the hierarchy dictating doctrine, and formed churches that were autonomous, adhering to doctrines consistent with their understanding of scripture. Also, along this line, were folks who thought the originating organization could be fixed, purified, and "reformed," but the "traditional Baptists" thought the originating organization could not be fixed, and they needed to fully separate from those dictating top down doctrine. Thus the "English Dissenters View" of the origin of "traditional baptists" is the one modern scholars hold.

Here is a blurb from Wikipedia:

Baptist churches have their origins with John Smyth, Thomas Helwys, and John Murton in the Kingdom of England and the Dutch Republic.[14][15][16] Because they shared beliefs with the Congregationalists, they went into exile in 1608 with other believers who held the same positions.[17] They believe that the Bible is to be the primary guide and that credobaptism is what the Bible teaches.[18] In 1609, the year considered to be the foundation of the Baptist tradition, these exiled Dissenters baptized believers and their church became the first Baptist church.[19][20]​

John Smyth was a "puritan" but after being excommunicated from the Church of England, embraced "believer's baptism" and rejected "infant baptism."

John Smyth's church which relocated to Amsterdam due to persecution of dissenters under James I. In 1609, the church began practicing believer's baptism, and in 1611, part of the congregation, led by Thomas Helwys, returned to England and founded the first Baptist Church on English soil in Spitalfields, London. John Murton became the pastor of the church after Helwys died in prison in 1616.​

Their legacy is comprised of our traditional baptist distinctives, which advocates full religious liberty and Soul Liberty and Separation of Church and State. Also note that General Atonement, Christ dying for all mankind, provides the "liberty" for any lost person to obtain salvation by grace through faith.

On the other side of the ledger are those that believe in top down polity, where leaders dictate confessions and creeds which must be accepted or the person lacks "saving faith."

 

[Van]

In opposition to "Soul Liberty" and the opportunity of the lost to obtain salvation by grace through faith, are the beliefs of John Spilsbury, who founded the first "Particular Baptist" church in 1638. In a nutshell, here is his "Reformed or Particular" view:

I believe God out of the counsel of his will, did, before he made the world, elect and choose some certain number of his foreseen fallen creatures, and appointed them to eternal life in his Son, for the glory of his grace: which number so elected shall be saved, come to glory, & the rest left in sin to glorify his justice.​

​

 

[JonC]

Reformed churches have become that which they spoke against. They are another type of Roman Catholic Church (different "popes", different Confessions...but same in kind).

 

[Van]

Reformed churches have become that which they spoke against. They are another type of Roman Catholic Church (different "popes", different Confessions...but same in kind).

Yes, man-made traditions becoming the lens by which scripture is interpreted. Top-down to the core.

The gift of faith, rather than God crediting our faith.

Chosen unconditionally rather than chosen through faith in the truth.

No lost person seeks God, rather than many seek the narrow door but do not find it.

Christ died as a ransom for some, rather than as a ransom for all.

Everyone entering heaven is under the influence of irresistible grace, rather than some entering heaven are prevented by false teachers.

 

[Zaatar71]

The Apostles were Reformed Baptists. Just read what they wrote and taught.

 

[Van]

Romans 4:5?
2 Thessalonians 2:13?
Luke 13:24?
1 Timothy 2:6?
Matthew 23:13?

 

[Van]

The first English speaking Baptist church was established in Amsterdam, Netherlands, in 1609 by English Dissenters who had fled persecution by the Church of England, using the power of the state under King James I.

The first "Particular Baptist church was established in 1638 in London, England by a group that held Calvinist beliefs, particularly Limited Atonement, with the first Pastor being John Spilsbury.

 

[atpollard]

In opposition to "Soul Liberty" and the opportunity of the lost to obtain salvation by grace through faith, are the beliefs of John Spilsbury, who founded the first "Particular Baptist" church in 1638. In a nutshell, here is his "Reformed or Particular" view:
I believe God out of the counsel of his will, did, before he made the world, elect and choose some certain number of his foreseen fallen creatures, and appointed them to eternal life in his Son, for the glory of his grace: which number so elected shall be saved, come to glory, & the rest left in sin to glorify his justice.

I do not think that "soul Liberty" has anything to do with TULIP, Free Will, Monergism or Synergism ... except to argue that men are free to believe any of those that they please and answer only to God for their beliefs.

From "All About Baptists ..."

Baptists have had a long-term determination to adhere to the Biblical doctrine that they call "Individual Soul Liberty."
Church history verifies that Christians have died for this principle. The teaching that individuals are sovereign in matters of faith is one that Baptists will not compromise.
The individual soul is answerable to Almighty God and to Him alone. This precludes giving up that independency to a pope, a priest, a system, an organization, a convention, a fellowship, an association, or any other human being. None of these are given the authority to interpose anything whatsoever between the individual believer and God concerning any matter of faith.
A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination or to choose no religious belief system and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose otherwise. Furthermore, a person may change his/her mind at any time.
This doctrine springs from the many examples in church history where the independency of the believer was stifled and sometimes even forbidden. Under the rule of Constantine, Roman law demanded that all people in the Roman Empire become Christians. The result of this law was forcing Christianity upon the masses by infant baptism and a meaningless profession by adults. Accordingly, the Dark Ages are a testimony to the absolute failure imposed on believers when the "church" begins to dictate whatever "truth" it deems necessary to force all members to conform. Not only is Roman Catholocism guilty of this but so are many of the mainline Protestant denominations.
Furthermore, Baptists themselves would do well to avoid the denial of this doctrine. Pastors who overlord their flocks or churches that submit themselves to denominational control will need to return again to the Scriptures concerning this vital historical Bapist distinctive. To demand, whether directly or indirectly, that believers submit to any kind of authoritarian rule is both unscriptural and, in fact, questionable. This generation has seen its Jim Jones's and David Karesh's. Whenever believers give up their individual soul liberty in favor of following the demands of another person or affiliation, they do indeed compromise this essential doctrine of the faith.

from "Highpoint Baptist Church"

Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
 (Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9)

from "Baptist Press"

While Baptists have been known for holding their doctrines firmly and passionately, they also insisted on the rights of others to do the same. The news of radio personality Hank Hanegraaff, the “Bible Answer Man,” recently converting to Eastern Orthodoxy may have surprised many evangelicals, but Baptists support his liberty to convert. It was Baptists who first insisted on religious liberty in Rhode Island. It was Virginia Baptists who wrote to Thomas Jefferson insisting that the Constitution of the United States provide religious liberty for all. Baptists stand for religious liberty, so I am a Baptist.
On Jan. 5, 1527, Felix Manz was executed by drowning. His alleged crime was three-fold. First, following his conversion, he was re-baptized as an adult. Second, he re-baptized others whom he led to Christ. Third, he refused to have his infant children christened.
On the way to his death, Manz would not be silenced. He sang praises to God and preached to the bystanders. Upon arriving at the Limmat River, Manz was placed in a boat, immobilized and tipped into the icy water. Manz gave his life for the convictions for which he had lived.
Manz was one of our Anabaptist forefathers. He lived and died for the Baptist distinctives of biblical authority, believer’s baptism and a believer’s church. Manz was one link in our long heritage of bold, New Testament believers. Following our forefathers’ examples, let us never be ashamed to call ourselves Baptists.

from "Baptist Bulletin"

Because we believe in the priesthood of the believer, we believe in individual soul liberty. This belief is the unique gift of Baptists—along with their cousins, the Mennonites. But it is often a doctrine we misunderstand or underemphasize. Simply put, the priesthood of the believer is the idea that every believer answers only to God through his or her conscience for his or her religious beliefs and behavior. Believers answer only to God and their own consciences.
So if you are going to persuade believers, you must use the Bible. A believer cannot be persuaded with moral force or individual force or legal force. We do not use human means to persuade people of spiritual things. We do not use the government.
This emphasis on the Bible is why Baptists have always taught that infant baptism is wrong: It’s done without the infant’s permission. Those who practice infant baptism force church identification on a child. The issue here is not just the mode of baptizing the infant; it is the meaning. Infant baptism is done without the conscience agreement and consent and decision of that child. Therefore it violates individual soul liberty.
“Soul liberty” is very different from “Christian liberties.” When we discuss soul liberty, we are not discussing American individualism. Believers are part of a body, and members of the body have a relationship to one another. Believers persuade each other—provoke each other to be godly, to be accountable to one another, to be submissive to one another. That’s a far cry from American individualism.
We cannot have autonomy of the local church without separation of church and state. If the government is permitted to control what we believe or what religion we practice, we have no soul liberty.

 

[Van]

I do not think that "soul Liberty" has anything to do with TULIP, Free Will, Monergism or Synergism ... except to argue that men are free to believe any of those that they please and answer only to God for their beliefs.

SNIP

Of course you can believe "Soul Liberty" means the lost are not at liberty to obtain salvation by grace through faith, because the outcome of their lives was pre-determined before the foundation of the world. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

Of course you can believe Christ died only for those supposedly chosen as specific individuals before the foundation of the world. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

Of course you can believe God chose foreseen individuals without regard for their faith before the foundation of the world. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

Of course you can believe God compels the lost with irresistible grace because they lack Soul Liberty. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

There is no issue, your beliefs are yours and they conform to Calvinism, rather than the traditional baptist views such as Christ died as a ransom for all, and God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth, rather than unconditionally.

 

[atpollard]

Of course you can believe "Soul Liberty" means the lost are not at liberty to obtain salvation by grace through faith, because the outcome of their lives was pre-determined before the foundation of the world. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

Of course you can believe Christ died only for those supposedly chosen as specific individuals before the foundation of the world. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

Of course you can believe God chose foreseen individuals without regard for their faith before the foundation of the world. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

Of course you can believe God compels the lost with irresistible grace because they lack Soul Liberty. Not what scripture teaches as held by traditional baptists.

There is no issue, your beliefs are yours and they conform to Calvinism, rather than the traditional baptist views such as Christ died as a ransom for all, and God chooses individuals for salvation through faith in the truth, rather than unconditionally.

Since no baptist but you seems to know what Baptists believe ... Not major Baptist Churches, not prominent Baptist Publications, not Baptist Apologetic Ministries (all of which I quoted defining SOUL LIBERTY), I have nothing to offer your omniscient pontification rant against Particular Baptists (who authored the first Baptist Confession in 1689).

Carry on without me.
L8R

 

[JesusFan]

The Apostles were Reformed Baptists. Just read what they wrote and taught.

And think that those MANY reformers who were executed by Rome for denying the papacy and daring to get Bible out of Latin into English would very much disagree identical in theology and doctrines to church of Rome

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, man-made traditions becoming the lens by which scripture is interpreted. Top-down to the core.

The gift of faith, rather than God crediting our faith.

Chosen unconditionally rather than chosen through faith in the truth.

No lost person seeks God, rather than many seek the narrow door but do not find it.

Christ died as a ransom for some, rather than as a ransom for all.

Everyone entering heaven is under the influence of irresistible grace, rather than some entering heaven are prevented by false teachers.

You keep parroting the heresy of the full free gospel, but you either never quote the scriptures, or totally misapply/misunderstand them, as you indeed filter thru the lens of full free will

 

[Van]

Since no baptist but you seems to know what Baptists believe ... Not major Baptist Churches, not prominent Baptist Publications, not Baptist Apologetic Ministries (all of which I quoted defining SOUL LIBERTY), I have nothing to offer your omniscient pontification rant against Particular Baptists (who authored the first Baptist Confession in 1689).

Carry on without me.
L8R

As usual, we get a diversionary post, changing the subject to my supposed behavior, rather than the topic. It is so old...

Did I provide blurbs relating the doctrines held by the first traditional baptist church, and the first Particular Baptist church? Yes. So the nobody but Van knows what the Baptists believe is diversionary malarkey.

Here is the post on what the first Particular Baptist church believed:

​

In opposition to "Soul Liberty" and the opportunity of the lost to obtain salvation by grace through faith, are the beliefs of John Spilsbury, who founded the first "Particular Baptist" church in 1638. In a nutshell, here is his "Reformed or Particular" view: ​

​

I believe God out of the counsel of his will, did, before he made the world, elect and choose some certain number of his foreseen fallen creatures, and appointed them to eternal life in his Son, for the glory of his grace: which number so elected shall be saved, come to glory, & the rest left in sin to glorify his justice. ​

There is no mystery as to what John Spilsbury believed, his views are published.

And there is no mystery as to what Smyth, Helwys and Murton believed as they published their views. Here is a snipped from Smyth: “… the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience, to force or compel men to this or that form of religion, or doctrine: but to leave Christian religion free, to every man’s conscience … for Christ only is the king, and lawgiver of the church and conscience (James 4:12).” On the other hand, the Calvinist would differ saying if you do not accept Limited Atonement, the cornerstone of the Particular Baptists, you lack saving faith.

Sounds like "religious liberty and soul liberty to me.








Quote Reply

Report

 

[Van]

You keep parroting the heresy of the full free gospel, but you either never quote the scriptures, or totally misapply/misunderstand them, as you indeed filter thru the lens of full free will

Note yet another diversionary post, changing the subject to my behavior, rather to address the thread topic. The false claims include I do not quote scripture. See post #6. Then the claim they do not mean what they say, such as God chooses people through faith in the truth.

Why do these Calvinists deny their views are radically different from the traditional baptist views held by the first baptist church?

Christ died for everyone, becoming the means of reconciliation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2 That is the traditional view. The Calvinists revise the verse so it means Christ died for foreseen individuals chosen before the foundation of the world. That is what the first Particular baptist church pastor believed.

 

[JesusFan]

Note yet another diversionary post, changing the subject to my behavior, rather to address the thread topic. The false claims include I do not quote scripture. See post #6. Then the claim they do not mean what they say, such as God chooses people through faith in the truth.

Why do these Calvinists deny their views are radically different from the traditional baptist views held by the first baptist church?

Christ died for everyone, becoming the means of reconciliation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2 That is the traditional view. The Calvinists revise the verse so it means Christ died for foreseen individuals chosen before the foundation of the world. That is what the first Particular baptist church pastor believed.

The earliest Christians as taught by the Apostles themselves were of the Particular salvation mode, not your full free will edition

 

[Van]

The earliest Christians as taught by the Apostles themselves were of the Particular salvation mode, not your full free will edition

Yet another false claim, as Limited Atonement had its inception in the 4th Century, with Augustine changing "all" of 1 Timothy 2:4 to "all kinds of people." But the actual verse reads "all people." So to suppose the Apostles wrote or taught all kinds of people when they used "all people" is laughable nonsense, the stuff of those unwilling to submit to the plain sense of scripture. Certainly not a traditional baptist view!!

Why do these Calvinists deny their views are radically different from the traditional baptist views held by the first baptist church?

Christ died for everyone, becoming the means of reconciliation for the whole of humanity, 1 John 2:2 That is the traditional view. The Calvinists revise the verse so it means Christ died for foreseen individuals chosen before the foundation of the world. That is what the first Particular baptist church pastor believed.

 

[Van]

Speaking of Traditional Baptists, let us move forward to the Emigrations of English speaking European Pilgrims.
A number of years ago, I gazed down upon a "rock" said to be the "Plymouth Rock" of historical fame. I had never read, or even skimmed "Of Plymouth Plantation" written by William Bradford, and in my mind "the Puritans" and the "Pilgrims" were peas in a pod. That confusion had been clarified, years before, circa 1630-50, by Bradford, but his account was not published until much later, circa 1856, when his recently discovered manuscript was published!

To bring this post back on topic, about half the Separatist Church at Leyden Netherlands, came to "Plymouth" aboard the Mayflower. They were called Separatists, or Brownists by their advisories, but they called themselves, "Saints." The "saints" sought religious freedom, and the others were more interested in economic freedom.

When we look back on our Democratic heritage in the USA, we look back of the belief of many of our first European settlers that believed they could judge for themselves what to believe and not have it prescribed or compelled by authorities such as a religious hierarchy or governing authority. And of course embedded in this believe is their capacity to read the Bible and come to their own conclusions regarding Christ.

 

[Van]

Which sounds more like the Liberty Bell?

Soul Liberty allows us to believe whatever we want within the confines that we cannot, without supernatural enablement, believe in Christ.

Soul Liberty allows us to believe our bible rather than the dictates of religious hierarchy or government authority.

Thus Soul Liberty without Soul Competency is fraudulent.

 

[canadyjd]

Reformed churches have become that which they spoke against. They are another type of Roman Catholic Church (different "popes", different Confessions...but same in kind).

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen you post.

The more you absorb vanology, the more you lose the ability to think critically.

What a shame.

Peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Don’t give up @Van!!! You have almost convinced the whole world to reject the doctrines of grace!!!

Or maybe not…

Peace to you