WE ARE TEACHING WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES-Why I left the Baptist Church

[BobRyan]

Bob.... did you play the video in its entirety? If not, he had other issues---for example, OSAS.

Agreed. But the problem is - if the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is to be thrown under the bus by Baptists (as some do on this board) and even D.L. Moody's views are to tossed under the us and called "A violation of the language rule for Baptist Board" to quote them...

Then what doctrine, what "version" of Baptist teaching can anyone point to as not being "up for sale"??

This guy could have put anything he wanted under the "Baptist roof" - except possibly for "infant baptism".

I agree with you that the easy believism problem does show up in the video.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Agreed. But the problem is - if the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is to be thrown under the bus by Baptists (as some do on this board) and even D.L. Moody's views are to tossed under the us and called "A violation of the language rule for Baptist Board" to quote them...

Then what doctrine, what "version" of Baptist teaching can anyone point to as not being "up for sale"??

This guy could have put anything he wanted under the "Baptist roof" - except possibly for "infant baptism".

I agree with you that the easy believism problem does show up in the video.

in Christ,

Bob

the "Baptist Confession of Faith".... What is that? Some denominational thing like 1689 Confessions that Reformed Baptists use? How about the Philadelphia Confessions or some Catechisms that some Reformed Baptists on here use?

But I would say that we would all agree to Believers Baptism, Trinity, Christ as Lord & Savior.

Id like to add that no one comes to the Father unless the Spirit draw him. Using Saul of Tarsus to Paul the Apostle as a primary example. But even there, they argue even that.

 

[saturneptune]

Since I have zero experience with these guys .....ya know its difficult to access them.

Roman Catholics & apostate Methodists, PCUSA & Lutherans, I have experience with.

The folks we should be concerned with are the RCC.....they can be formidable (Especially up North where you have allot of immigrants)......also Texas, California & NM, Right!

Have you ever dealt with the PCA?

 

[saturneptune]

Agreed. But the problem is - if the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is to be thrown under the bus by Baptists (as some do on this board) and even D.L. Moody's views are to tossed under the us and called "A violation of the language rule for Baptist Board" to quote them...

Then what doctrine, what "version" of Baptist teaching can anyone point to as not being "up for sale"??

This guy could have put anything he wanted under the "Baptist roof" - except possibly for "infant baptism".

I agree with you that the easy believism problem does show up in the video.

in Christ,

Bob

You have mentioned old Baptist Confessions many times in threads. Why is so hard to understand that each Baptist church is autonomous. The local church writes its own bylaws, Constitution and creed or confession, whatever you want to call it. Unlike your "denomination" we think for ourselves.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You have mentioned old Baptist Confessions many times in threads. Why is so hard to understand that each Baptist church is autonomous. The local church writes its own bylaws, Constitution and creed or confession, whatever you want to call it. Unlike your "denomination" we think for ourselves.

I think what he is saying SN, that what you just mentioned is why it is hard to pin a Baptist down on what one believes.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Have you ever dealt with the PCA?

Let me answer that tactfully......there is only one PCA in my area & the pastor rejects all confessions of faith & has easter egg hunts for the kids & cuts out pumpkins for holloween for them.

He probably does it to draw in the plethora of lapsed catholics in the area....subsequently his church is growing....and thats why I dont like him & wont go to his church. Unless he puts on an October Fest.....then Im in! LOL

 

[Rippon]

The local church writes its own bylaws, Constitution and creed or confession, whatever you want to call it. Unlike your "denomination" we think for ourselves.

The bylaws,constitution, vs. creeds/confessions are different things.

Many Baptists of a more Reformed nature do not rewrite Confessions of Faith. A number stick with the 1689. And just because they they do does not mean they are mindless. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The bylaws,constitution, vs. creeds/confessions are different things.

Many Baptists of a more Reformed nature do not rewrite Confessions of Faith. A number stick with the 1689. And just because they they do does not mean they are mindless. Why reinvent the wheel?

What do you think about those holding to the 1611 confessions? Just curious...ive found New Covenant theology people generally subscribing to that.

 

[Rippon]

What do you think about those holding to the 1611 confessions? Just curious...ive found New Covenant theology people generally subscribing to that.

I think you got confused with the Bible Versions forum!

You mean the 1644/46 London Confession of Fath. It was unrelated to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The 1689 was based on the WCoF along with Savoy Declaration.

Yes, the NC theology folks generally subscribe to the 1644/46 document.

______________________________________________
BTW, on another matter. Apology accepted.

 

[AnthonyB]

As a Christian who has been a member of baptist church of 16 years but comes from an RM background (Restoration Movement) there are several comments on this thread that bemuse me....

Yes they are no shortage on anti-intellectual CoC'ers out there but equally there are nutty Baptists as well. (eg Westboro).
There are serious biblical shcolars in the RM, Alexander Campbell (for all your dislike of him) was a very good debater. Jack Cottrel is IMHO not far in exegitcal skill from D A Carson, although I have issues with the conclusions of them both they both are extremely logical. Everett Ferguson's "Baptism in the early Church" is a tome that every Baptist should own to ward off those paedo's.

There are sacremental baptists which end up sounding very CoC especially in the British churches, Beasley-Murray is someway along that path and Wheeler-Robinson's "Baptist Principles" sounds like Alexander Campbell helped write it.

In the end there is no Baptist heaven, and no RM heaven, there is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one hope and one church founded by Jesus to which all who are his belong. It is foolish to think that we might hope for a return to NT doctrine and practices and put aside all divisions and be the one unified group of followers our Lord prayed for but I remain attached to that foolish hope because my Lord in the hour of his suffering asked for it.

 

[BobRyan]

Agreed. But the problem is - if the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is to be thrown under the bus by Baptists (as some do on this board) and even D.L. Moody's views are to tossed under the us and called "A violation of the language rule for Baptist Board" to quote them...

Then what doctrine, what "version" of Baptist teaching can anyone point to as not being "up for sale"??

This guy could have put anything he wanted under the "Baptist roof" - except possibly for "infant baptism".

I agree with you that the easy believism problem does show up in the video.

the "Baptist Confession of Faith".... What is that? Some denominational thing like 1689 Confessions that Reformed Baptists use? How about the Philadelphia Confessions .

C.H. Spurgeon revised the Baptist Confession of Faith and it was later adopted as the Philadelphia Confession.

So it is all one thing.

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith[1] (also called the Second London Baptist Confession) was written by Particular Baptists, who held to a Calvinistic Soteriology in England to give a formal expression of their Christian faith from a Baptist perspective. This confession, like The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Savoy Declaration (1658), was written by Puritans who were concerned that their particular church organisation reflect what they perceived to be Biblical teaching. Because it was adopted by the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches in the 18th century, it is also known as the Philadelphia Confession of Faith.[2]

It is all and expansion and format evolution of the same original document - simply being expanded (possibly to map more closely to the Westminster Confession of Faith).

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Yeshua1]

C.H. Spurgeon revised the Baptist Confession of Faith and it was later adopted as the Philadelphia Confession.

So it is all one thing.

It is all and expansion and format evolution of the same original document - simply being expanded (possibly to map more closely to the Westminster Confession of Faith).

in Christ,

Bob

Still NOT inspired scriptures though, NOT to be the source of doctrines and practices though , eh?

 

[BobRyan]

In the end there is no Baptist heaven, and no RM heaven, there is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one hope and one church founded by Jesus to which all who are his belong. It is foolish to think that we might hope for a return to NT doctrine and practices and put aside all divisions and be the one unified group of followers our Lord prayed for but I remain attached to that foolish hope because my Lord in the hour of his suffering asked for it.

The Jewish church was divided in Christ's day - not only Sadducee vs Pharisees, but also in the Christian church itself - Acts 15 shows a division arising. (as I am sure you will agree).

The solution was in what we find in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

Paul - an outcast from the church hierarchy of his day - the Jewish nation church leadership, himself a Pharisee as he claims, - is to be tested by these non-Christians in Berea sola-scriptura "to see IF" his doctrine "is so".

Only the "few" who choose that route will come to the unity of the faith.

Those who resort to the tired worn practices of dark-ages "name calling" (as some do on this board) as their rule and guide - will never get beyond the fumbling lost-in-dark condition of the Pharisees before them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The Jewish church was divided in Christ's day - not only Sadducee vs Pharisees, but also in the Christian church itself - Acts 15 shows a division arising. (as I am sure you will agree).

The solution was in what we find in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

Paul - an outcast from the church hierarchy of his day - the Jewish nation church leadership, himself a Pharisee as he claims, - is to be tested by these non-Christians in Berea sola-scriptura "to see IF" his doctrine "is so".

Only the "few" who choose that route will come to the unity of the faith.

Those who resort to the tired worn practices of dark-ages "name calling" (as some do on this board) as their rule and guide - will never get beyond the fumbling lost-in-dark condition of the Pharisees before them.

in Christ,

Bob

True...but they will do it cause that's all they have. True atavists.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting point - I never thought of it that.

 

[steaver]

Those who resort to the tired worn practices of dark-ages "name calling" (as some do on this board) as their rule and guide - will never get beyond the fumbling lost-in-dark condition of the Pharisees before them.

in Christ,

Bob

That's a pretty interesting comment, you declared that I was a "name caller" for pointing out religions who have like minded beliefs with debaters here, something you are very fond of doing yourself with the RCC. I have no problem with it and don't consider it name calling, but if you are going to consider it name calling then you might want to not do it yourself. :wavey:

 

[BobRyan]

That's a pretty interesting comment, you declared that I was a "name caller" for pointing out religions who have like minded beliefs with debaters here,

Really? You expect me to believe that if I should point out similarities between your views and the Mormon angel Moroni -- that it is viewed as not at all name - calling and ad hominem? Seriously??

This must be some Baptist thing that I was totally unaware of.

Clearly I have been lacking in my efforts to point out your similarities - primarily because I did not think it would be as welcomed as you are claiming.

I must say - this is truly news to me.

:wavey:

 

[steaver]

Really? You expect me to believe that if I should point out similarities between your views and the Mormon angel Moroni -- that it is viewed as not at all name - calling and ad hominem? Seriously??

This must be some Baptist thing that I was totally unaware of.

Clearly I have been lacking in my efforts to point out your similarities - primarily because I did not think it would be as welcomed as you are claiming.

I must say - this is truly news to me.

:wavey:

The only person on this thread that keeps claiming that the lost person needs to obey the Law to earn justification is you and your RCC canons. And when you do it on this thread - you are claiming that as the belief of "someone else" on this board or thread. Not a very compelling form of proof - IMHO. I understand your use of RC Canon law (council of Trent - considered by Catholics to be infallible since it is an ecumenical council) - to show what Catholics believe - but it makes no sense to accuse non-Catholics of it unless they themselves make those claims.

in Christ,

Bob

..............

 

[BobRyan]

Yes but then you switched in your more recent post to something that even your own Catholic link does not claim. The idea of the saints going back for "more justification" after already being a saved saint - coming to God as the lost to get justification "again" without first falling from Grace and being lost.

you have created your own realm of fiction in that regard.

 

[steaver]

Yes but then you switched in your more recent post to something that even your own Catholic link does not claim. The idea of the saints going back for "more justification" after already being a saved saint - coming to God as the lost to get justification "again" without first falling from Grace and being lost.

you have created your own realm of fiction in that regard.

There are only two choices; Either you are justified by grace through faith (Bible), or you are justified after you do all you can do, commandment keeping, works of righteousness, etc, (Moroni)