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!
For those of us who hold to historic Baptist principles there is a certain sting to these words. They are hard to refute. However, if just being a Christian was enough, the New Testament would have little need for anything outside of the Gospel of John.originally posted by Tuor: This is my point. By today's standards, the name Baptist means absolutely nothing. It means about as much as someone who claims to be a Christian.
I disagree. True there are a lot of people in baptist churches who don't hold to historic baptist belief on a number of issues. But those on whose theological coattails they ride would hold that you should distinguish between "baptist" as in those who attend or align themselves with a baptist congregation, and "baptist" as it applies in the realm of theology.Originally posted by Tuor:
These may be classic views, but they are not the views held by all "baptists" today.
This is my point. By today's standards, the name Baptist means absolutely nothing. It means about as much as someone who claims to be a Christian.
As I said, absolutely nothing.
Regardless of how one interprets the Bible,or specific aspects thereof, it is still the sole authority. It is the dismissal of human made creeds that is important.Originally posted by Tuor:
What is important is how one interprets the Bible. The Bible can be made to say anything, especially if one believes in the 'human lens' aspect of inspiration.
There are also indications that those Letters to specific congregations were also meant to be passed around. That still does not negate the fact that the churches were urged to make their own decisions amongst their own ranks as I pointed out in Acts and 2Corinthians. Paul, who certainly had the authority to dictate policy to the Corinthians, did not do so but instead conceded to the "majority."Also, the majority of the Pauline Letters are addressed not to general audiences but to specific congregations.
Individual cases do not prove the rule. 1 John is not adressed to any paticular church. It is believed the 1 John was possibly a letter that was meant to be circulated to many different churches.
Then I would hope that they joined the Baptist Board so we could straighten them out.According to the doctrine of Soul Competency, it would be possible for Baptists to believe that baptism in paticular is salvic in nature. There are verses that support this position.
But my view is clearly defined by the Scriptural references I cited. Until one can show me the error in my thought, my view stands, if only to me. I alone am accountable for this view and my interpretation of the Scriptures. If I convince or persuade others then I have helped educate other believers into this "truth" that I hold. They, and you, are fee to disagree with that interpretation. Welcome to the use of Soul Competency.You will find my own comments toward the bottom of the first page as I felt that there was a misunderstanding in that thread as well.
I am talking about a general 'Baptist' view. The view is different depending on who you ask. Your views are more conservative and traditional, but that does not negate the fact that Baptists do not necessarily hold to your view.
Baptism, again, is an act of obedience and profession of faith. It is not a "hoop." It is an ordinance of the church. This particular assertion is not up to your usual quality, Nils. God will save who he will save. I have no control over that. On the other hand, I do have control (to a degree) over whom I allow into my church membership and give a voice to in matters of church polity.In other words, there are more hoops to jump through in order to become a member of a Baptist church than entering the kingdom of heaven.
On the other hand, it is a nice of requiring baptism, but deny it is salvic in nature.
I can neither confirm nor deny this, but if it is so, they have lost their way. I will worry about the preservation of docrine in my own church, I cannot control theirs.Going back to "is it Baptist" once again I'd have to disagree. There are Baptist churches that do not require baptism into that church in order to become a member of that church. I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts on that one.
The experience of the founders of this denomination can hardly be viewed as "knee-jerk." It was hard won with jailings and beatings. Bear in mind that whenever there is a theocracy, it follows that taxes are raised to support the governments religion. Christ told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's but unto God what is God's. I would also encourage you to explore the story of Darius and Daniel and see why this type of seperation is necessary.As I said, purely political. I believe this belief is purely a knee jerk reaction to the persecution in Europe. It was derived from experience, not through the Bible.
Yes, I agree. Every Scriptural reference IS important, even those that deal with the governing of a church. In Matthew 16 Peter's profession of faith in Christ defines Christianity, Christ's remarks that follow speak of BUILDING the church. We, as Baptist, use the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. to do this.If you mean Christian = elect, then I couldn't disagree more. Every scripture is important, otherwise God wouldn't have given it to us.
Brother Nils! I AM one of the ones in authority on this site!!!Evidently, the ones in authority at this site disagree with you. Those that do not hold to your views on what it means to be a Baptist post in the "Baptist Only Forums" all the time.
No, you and I happen to be in agreement with this. I would strongly protest a person living a homosexual lifestyle joining my own church. I have put in my two cents on the issue before in debates on this board.Once someone starts saying that the Bible says such things as living in rebellion to God (eg living a homosexual lifestyle) is God's will, then I have a problem.
From your post, it seems that we are in disagreement on this.
3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.1 Corinthians 5 would seem to contradict what you are saying. Paul commands these people to expell the immoral brother.
Paul's persecution does not over ride the persecution of the early Baptists. Bear in mind also that Paul's Letters could have been intercepted and destroyed and Paul put to death if he HAD advocated such an idea. The Romans were very clever in holding down rebellion. Besides, the Romans were rather tolerant of free exercise of religion. There was no need to address this issue.The experience of the founders of this denomination can hardly be viewed as "knee-jerk." It was hard won with jailings and beatings.
Did Paul suffer any less punishment? Did Paul teach that there should be a seperation between church and state so that such actions won't happen again?
If you wish, I'm sure that you will get much response on the thread. This subject usually does. I fear that I do not have as much time for debate as I would like o the site anymore, but I will watch it.I'll start a new thread on Baptism. It is an important issue, but not really one relevent to this thread.
Decisions on this board are generally reached by concensus with the webmaster having final say and/or veto power. I do have a bit of influence in these matters, however. I suspect anyone reading this that has been asked to leave that area of the board received a PM or e-mail from me. I'm kind of a "take the bull by the horns" kind of fellow.I don't believe that you are the person with the final say so as to who posts where.
It doesn't appear as if Paul is saying, this is what I'd do, but go ahead and do what you want to do. Paul is telling us not to associate with a brother who is living by the flesh. This is a command, not a suggestion.I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually imooral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extrotioner- not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away form yourselves the evil person"
From the 1644 London Baptist Confession:Exceot that historically (meaning in the confessions) it has been called the authority of scripture, without qualifiers like inerrancy. (Though I think I recall the confessions making claims of inspiration that are inconsistent with liberal theology.. someone help me out here?).
Any ideas on why this change came about? Was it a defensive response mechanism to higher criticism?We are now moving beyond an affirmation of Scripture to an affirmation of a particular view of Scripture.
Clint, I assume that when you say that it is the dismissal of creeds that is important, you mean important for the purpose of defining "Baptist".Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
...Regardless of how one interprets the Bible,or specific aspects thereof, it is still the sole authority. It is the dismissal of human made creeds that is important...
[/QB]
Any ideas on why this change came about? Was it a defensive response mechanism to higher criticism?</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe, but I'd be hesitant to chalk itup to any one thing. Postmillenialism was also very high in the late 19th century (the time of thenew hampshire confession) which could indicate that confidence in the Bible was high as well. So the statements could reflect that too.Originally posted by rsr:
By Latreia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We are now moving beyond an affirmation of Scripture to an affirmation of a particular view of Scripture.
I ain't even a baptist and I can tell you this isn't a plausiable scenario, because the JW's don't hold to the Trinity. And Trinitarian belief is a core belief in the baptist tradition.local Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witnesses splits from the JW organization over the issue of liberty and the priesthood of the believer. What would be their position? Seems to me that, based on "Baptist distinctives" alone, they would qualify as Baptists. They do in fact hold the Scriptures in much higher regard than at least several "Baptists" on this Board. So, can they legitimately now call their newly separated congregation "Baptist", with the Baptist distinctives along with all the other JW teachings that they get by misinterpreting scriptures that they sincerely claim as their authority?
To the best of my knowledge, this is an accurate statement. I believe we are safe in saying that Trinatarian doctrine runs common through the Baptist faith. At least I have never heard of a Unitarian Baptist sect.Chemnitz said: Trinitarian belief is a core belief in the baptist tradition.