-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What does Baptist mean now?
- Thread starter SolaSaint
- Start date
Your logic is faulty, if saying you are baptist makes you a baptist, then saying you are christian makes you a Christian. Neither is true because anti-Christs will say they are Baptist Christians.
Lets take scripture alone. 100% of the folks on this board claim to be baptists and claim to believe in scripture alone as the sole authority for faith and practice. Yet we have folks making arguments from silence, saying prove it (what the Bible does not say) is wrong. For example a Calvinist claims our individual election for salvation was unconditional, yet 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says our individual election for salvation was through faith in the truth.
This just illustrates the point, the Bible says the tomb was empty, and therefore to say the resurrection was not bodily is to say God's word is either errant or does not mean what it says.
So again, anyone can claim to be a Christian, or a committed Christian like our President, or a Baptist, but unless they walk like a duck and quack like a duck, we are to judge them by their fruits, which often times is to divide the body with non-biblical doctrine.
12strings---You're correct about Harry Emerson Fosdick!
Back in his days (c. 1920's) he was THE antithesis of every fundamental ("fundamental" in the classical, historic sense that is) Bible-believing Christian.
Most notably, perhaps, HEF was known for mocking the absolute necessity of Jesus's blood sacrifice on Calvary's cross to atone for our sins.
HEF openly preached on the radio time and time again that (according to HEF anyway) the NT no where teaches anything that comes even close to what HEF referred to as a "slaughterhouse" religion!
Not sure what HEF thought about such passages as Revelation 5:9 ff.!!!
BTW, HEF was also the favorite pastor of the NY state Rockefellers. Old John D. himself donated big bucks so that "his beloved" HEF could construct the Riverside (in Manhattan, NYC) Cathedral. The RC still stands today as one of NYC's finest cathedrals.
Also, HEF claimed to be a Baptist!!!
I wonder how many of our BB pastors would invite HEF to preach for them were HEF alive today??!!??
Back in his days (c. 1920's) he was THE antithesis of every fundamental ("fundamental" in the classical, historic sense that is) Bible-believing Christian.
Most notably, perhaps, HEF was known for mocking the absolute necessity of Jesus's blood sacrifice on Calvary's cross to atone for our sins.
HEF openly preached on the radio time and time again that (according to HEF anyway) the NT no where teaches anything that comes even close to what HEF referred to as a "slaughterhouse" religion!
Not sure what HEF thought about such passages as Revelation 5:9 ff.!!!
BTW, HEF was also the favorite pastor of the NY state Rockefellers. Old John D. himself donated big bucks so that "his beloved" HEF could construct the Riverside (in Manhattan, NYC) Cathedral. The RC still stands today as one of NYC's finest cathedrals.
Also, HEF claimed to be a Baptist!!!
I wonder how many of our BB pastors would invite HEF to preach for them were HEF alive today??!!??
I'm saying being a member (or pastor) of a baptist church makes one a baptist, by most people's reckoning...but it doesn't make one a Christian.
The difference is that the Bible tells us what makes one a Christ follower, but does not tell us what makes one a baptist...so we must go by the man-made definitions: Primarily boiled down to not baptizing infants and local church autonomy.
Now, there are doubtless hundreds or thousands of churches that hold to ALL of what we would consider truly Baptist & Truly Christian distinctives...but for various reasons have never taken the name baptist, and don't consider themselves Baptist. We can either take them at their word, realizing that Baptist is a man-made descriptor, or we can ignore their wishes and force the baptist name upon them.
To look at it another way...you don't consider yourself an arminian...some people do. Who's right? I would say you are because you get to decide if you want to be under that label.
Not sure your point here:
-Calvinists aren't Baptists...?
Hi 12 Strings, The point was people say they are Baptists, and say they believe in scripture alone, yet argue that scripture does not mean what it says because it conflicts with man-made doctrine.
Note Yeshua1 did not address 2 Thessalonians 2:13 but sought to change the subject and discuss yet another passage that does not support the man-made doctrine. We are chosen through faith in the truth, not chosen before we have faith and given the gift of faith. As many as received Him were given the right to become children of God, and how were they given the right? By being spiritually placed in Christ by God, where they were born again. Thus in every place, we are chosen through faith in the truth.
Note Yeshua1 did not address 2 Thessalonians 2:13 but sought to change the subject and discuss yet another passage that does not support the man-made doctrine. We are chosen through faith in the truth, not chosen before we have faith and given the gift of faith. As many as received Him were given the right to become children of God, and how were they given the right? By being spiritually placed in Christ by God, where they were born again. Thus in every place, we are chosen through faith in the truth.
Certainly not this one!
Good job, 12strings!
Over the centuries there have been many cases of splits in Baptist groups because of liberalism. In the 19th century, Spurgeon fought the "Downgrade Movement," in which many Baptist pastors had become unitarian universalists among the British Baptists. Since the Baptist Union would not take a stand, Spurgeon eventually left the BU and became an independent. He wrote early on in the controversy, "The Atonement is scouted, the inspiration of Scripture is derided, the Holy Spirit is degraded into an influence, the punishment of sin is turned into fiction, and the resurrection into a myth, and yet these enemies of our faith expect us to call them brethren, and maintain a confederacy with them! (The "Down Grade" Controversy, by Spurgeon, p. 17, written in 1887 in "The Sword and the Trowel").
In the early 1900s the Northern Baptist Convention was shot through with liberals such as Shailer Matthews, one of its founders. This resulted in conservatives leaving the NBC and founding the GARBC in 1932, then others leaving and founding the Conservative Baptists in 1947. Nowadays in the same group you have advocates for the ordination of homosexual "ministers."
In the south, the SBC was rampant with liberalism for decades, which is where the Southern IFB movement came from when 100s of churches left the convention. My grandfather wrote Southern Baptists and Wolves in Sheep's Clothing in 1972 to document the liberalism. George Buttrick, who taught at Southern in Louisville at one point, denied inspiration and Christ's atonement and other doctrines.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
If William Newton Clarke were alive today, I would invite him to preach.
I have his systematic theology book -- very old. It is excellent, although I don't agree with all of it.
I have his systematic theology book -- very old. It is excellent, although I don't agree with all of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Misdirection
Are we saved by the will of God? Yes
Are we saved by the will of man? No
Are we all sinners? Yes
Would any unregenerate sinner ever will to be saved? Yes. God said it does not depend on the man that wills, so He says unsaved men will. Romans 9:16.
Are there examples of lost men willing to be saved? Yes Matthew 13:1-23.
Yet again Yeshua1 has asserted liberal dogma not supported my scripture, in that he claims scripture does not mean what it says, but must be interpreted to say opposite things. And again, nothing was offered to explain the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Instead a barrage of subject change efforts are thrown in to obscure the truth.
Are we saved by the will of God? Yes
Are we saved by the will of man? No
Are we all sinners? Yes
Would any unregenerate sinner ever will to be saved? Yes. God said it does not depend on the man that wills, so He says unsaved men will. Romans 9:16.
Are there examples of lost men willing to be saved? Yes Matthew 13:1-23.
Yet again Yeshua1 has asserted liberal dogma not supported my scripture, in that he claims scripture does not mean what it says, but must be interpreted to say opposite things. And again, nothing was offered to explain the fact that 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Instead a barrage of subject change efforts are thrown in to obscure the truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
So you deny scripture yet again. Men can will to be saved. That is supported by many scriptures including Matthew 13:1-23. You say men cannot will to be saved at any time. That is supported by inserting your text into scripture.
What revelation does the Lord grant beyond the gospel which is the power of God for salvation? You have got nothing to support your extra-biblical assertions.
Again returning to what you are evading over and over, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says we were chosen for salvation through faith. Thus we had faith before we were individually chosen. Still waiting for you to acknowledge the truth of this scripture.
Yet another subject change. Yeshua1 claims we are chosen individually, then given faith, the Calvinist dogma, yet when confronted with 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth, he seeks to change the subject. Go back and count his posts evading the truth of scripture. And he continues to make mistaken assertions.
Jesus said sinners seek after God in Matthew 13:1-23. Paul said sinners will to be saved in Romans 9:16. And for those unfamiliar with Isaiah, read Isaiah 51:1. Yeshua1 simply makes up falsehoods and posts them over and over.
Meanwhile did he address 2 Thessalonians 2:13 which says we were chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Nope.
Well, you neglected these verses!
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5: "For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction. You know what kind of men we proved to be among you for your sake."
2 Thessalonians 2:13: "But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification [by the Spirit] and belief in the truth."
2 Timothy 1:9: "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,"
Calvinism is as bad, if not worse, than KJVO.
1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 supports my view and precludes yours. They were chosen through faith in that gospel, which is the power of God for salvation.
2 Thessalonians 2:13, NASB reads "but we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen youfrom the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Note "to be saved" is not how the grammar requires the text to be translated. That is why the NASB, HCSB, NET, NKJV, and everybody else excluding the NIV and ESV translate the text. To defend mistaken doctrine by translation shopping for mistranslations is without merit.
2 Timothy 1:9 also supports my position and precludes yours. There is no mention of being individually chosen for salvation before time began, but rather an statement that God's gracious plan of redemption for those redeemed was formulated before time began.
2 Thessalonians 2:13, NASB reads "but we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen youfrom the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. Note "to be saved" is not how the grammar requires the text to be translated. That is why the NASB, HCSB, NET, NKJV, and everybody else excluding the NIV and ESV translate the text. To defend mistaken doctrine by translation shopping for mistranslations is without merit.
2 Timothy 1:9 also supports my position and precludes yours. There is no mention of being individually chosen for salvation before time began, but rather an statement that God's gracious plan of redemption for those redeemed was formulated before time began.