What type of a Baptist are you?

[Iconoclast]

Still Standing

My definition of Baptist is going to be just that, “mine”. I realize this. To me, “Baptist” is historically not a denomination but a core collection of Biblical beliefs held by certain people carrying different labels down through the centuries. They were never part of any organized, central religion, such as Catholicism or the Church of England or the Dutch Reformed Church.

An assembly of believers needs to agree on what it is they believe.

God does not save us as isolated individuals...like bb's in a bucket.

They have always been “separatist” in practice, fundamentalist in theology and minority in number.

This kind of general non descript language does not get it done.
A Mormon can write the same sentence. In offering a description; separatist from what practice? what fundamentals? Answering theses questions is going to define you, or bap4life.....you can avoid it if you want to..but it is there.

They hold to belief in the plenary inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth of Jesus, the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith in the blood of Christ, total submersion baptism of a professing believer as a visible testimony of the new birth , eternal security of the believer and the second coming of Christ.

again..it is not stating it, but defining it that matters.

Many denominations hold most or all of these points in some form or another. Of course I know this.

Of course you do!

The thing is, at least to my way of thinking, to understand what a historical Baptist is it’s sometimes easier to figure out what he is not.
What do I mean by that?

you are not totally wrong here as Baptists that you allude to have many unscriptural beliefs.....just because they agreed on immersion does not bind us together.

What is coffee? To know the true essence of coffee in this day and age, you’re often gonna’ have to remove everything else first. Let’s remove the whipped cream, the chocolate, the milk, the sugar and the pumpkin spice and we are able to finally taste the actual coffee. You say “But I got it at a Starbuck’s Coffee Shop and it was clearly labeled “coffee”. Well, there was coffee in it, but you couldn’t recognize it for all of the other stuff that had been added to it. Yet it still carried the label “coffee”, and even a faint hint of the flavor.

good illustration:thumbs:

We say “But I got this doctrine at a Baptist church and it said “Baptist” right on it”. Well, there may have been Baptist in it, but you couldn’t recognize it for all of the stuff added .

Who can say such a thing? what if we are still the "early church"? What if our understanding forces more of a blend of different branches of Christianity?

Are you going to say a biblical Presbyterian is not saved?

Reformed theology was an addition. Calvinism was a later addition. So was Arminianism, Covenant Theology,

These realities come to us as history...real history.We do not live in a vacuum.

Replacement Theology… you get the picture.

No we do not. This term can be discussed and has been. The fact is most use the tern in ignorance.

I believe that if you can trace your theology to some specific fellow or fellows back in the dusty, dim eons of the Europe of the Reformation, men who came along 1000 to 1600 years after Christ and Paul, who were trying to sweep through the cobwebs of their own dead false church and find a new way, you are adding to the coffee. You are not a Baptist.

This is a narrowed skewed view of church history. there are many Baptists who find truth wherever it comes from in history...you mentioned Luther before...do you believe in justification by faith alone?

The reformers and puritans contributed much to biblical truth while many of the confused and schismatic Baptists were all over the place.

Now, having said all of that, let me say this. I am nobody.

You are somebody to God, and you have a voice in the public arena. You are welcome to express your view, and more than welcome to offer what scripture you think makes your case.....we are also welcome to search the scripture and see if these things are so.

My views are mine own, and although they have been hard won and held dear over a lot of years down in the mud, the blood and the tears on the front lines in the ministry, they are just my views. And I am just…me.

That is true for all of us. No one posts what they believe to be error.:thumbs:

And while me doesn’t mind expressing his beliefs, views or opinions where adults are having a grown-up discussion, me is not interested in a fight

.

It does not have to be a fight at all....go to scripture and make your case.

 

[OldRegular]

My definition of Baptist is going to be just that, “mine”. I realize this. To me, “Baptist” is historically not a denomination but a core collection of Biblical beliefs held by certain people carrying different labels down through the centuries. They were never part of any organized, central religion, such as Catholicism or the Church of England or the Dutch Reformed Church. They have always been “separatist” in practice, fundamentalist in theology and minority in number. They hold to belief in the plenary inspiration of scripture, the virgin birth of Jesus, the trinity, the deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith in the blood of Christ, total submersion baptism of a professing believer as a visible testimony of the new birth , eternal security of the believer and the second coming of Christ.
Many denominations hold most or all of these points in some form or another. Of course I know this. The thing is, at least to my way of thinking, to understand what a historical Baptist is it’s sometimes easier to figure out what he is not.
What do I mean by that?
What is coffee? To know the true essence of coffee in this day and age, you’re often gonna’ have to remove everything else first. Let’s remove the whipped cream, the chocolate, the milk, the sugar and the pumpkin spice and we are able to finally taste the actual coffee. You say “But I got it at a Starbuck’s Coffee Shop and it was clearly labeled “coffee”. Well, there was coffee in it, but you couldn’t recognize it for all of the other stuff that had been added to it. Yet it still carried the label “coffee”, and even a faint hint of the flavor.
We say “But I got this doctrine at a Baptist church and it said “Baptist” right on it”. Well, there may have been Baptist in it, but you couldn’t recognize it for all of the stuff added .
Reformed theology was an addition. Calvinism was a later addition. So was Arminianism, Covenant Theology, Replacement Theology… you get the picture.
I believe that if you can trace your theology to some specific fellow or fellows back in the dusty, dim eons of the Europe of the Reformation, men who came along 1000 to 1600 years after Christ and Paul, who were trying to sweep through the cobwebs of their own dead false church and find a new way, you are adding to the coffee. You are not a Baptist.
Now, having said all of that, let me say this. I am nobody. My views are mine own, and although they have been hard won and held dear over a lot of years down in the mud, the blood and the tears on the front lines in the ministry, they are just my views. And I am just…me. And while me doesn’t mind expressing his beliefs, views or opinions where adults are having a grown-up discussion, me is not interested in a fight.

I may not have put it exactly as you have but I think you did a fine job in this and your previous post.

I don't like to be called a Calvinist because I do not believe some of the "stuff" Calvin taught. I don't believe TULIP is the sum total of the Biblical Doctrines of Grace. I am not Arminian because I totally disagree with most if not all of their doctrine. I am reformed only in the sense that I am a new Creation in Jesus Christ. I am not a Protestant, never have been, never will be, though I routinely and vigorously protest some of the doctrines espoused on this Baptist Board, whether espoused by "Baptists" or others.

I believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture.

I believe that the The Lord our God is one Lord, revealed in Scripture as three divine persons: God the Father, God the Son or God the Word, and God the Holy Spirit; all three eternal and self existent yet One God.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the incarnate God in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, fully God and fully man, yet one person.

I believe in the Virgin birth of Jesus Christ and the necessity of the Virgin Birth.

I believe salvation is solely by the Grace of God and was secured for the believer by the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ through His death on the Cross.

I believe that the Church for which Jesus Christ died includes the redeemed of all time.

I believe that true believers are to associate themselves with those of like mind in a local body which also constitutes a Church.

I believe that Scriptural Baptism is to be administered only to those who associate with a local body of believers

I believe that Scriptural Baptism is the total immersion of a professing believer as a visible testimony of his experience of Grace.

I believe that the Lord's supper is a memorial of the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ on the Cross and is to be observed only by Baptized believers of a local body until He returns.

I believe that the eternal security of the Saints, the true believer, is preserved by the Grace of God.

I believe those saved by the blood of jesus Christ are His workmanship and ought to walk as He walked.

I believe in the Visible return of Jesus Christ at the time of God's choosing, the resurrection of all the dead, those who died in Jesus Christ and those who died in Adam, followed by the Great White Throne Judgment.

I believe that Satan and those who died in Adam will be cast into the lake of fire.

I believe those who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ will receive a glorified body like unto His glorious body and shall dwell eternally in the presence of God in the New Heavens and New Earth.

I call myself a Baptist because I believe that the doctrines of most Baptist Churches reflect more clearly the teaching of Scripture. There are some on this Forum who might call me an "Old School Baptist" and I thank them whole heartedly!

If I think of anything else I will add it!

 

[Tom Butler]

Old Regular said in post #122

I believe.....

This is an excellent summary of historic Baptist beliefs.

I have described myself as a Calvinist because it comes closest to what I believe about the doctrines of grace. Because of the baggage that goes with the term, I now simply describe myself as a DoG (Doctrines of Grace). If that raises further questions, I'll fill in the blanks.

I, too, don't refer to myself as a Protestant.

 

[Still Standing]

You're not getting it, and it's my fault because I have not been able to explain it clearly.

You say "go to scripture and make your case." That's my whole point. There is not scripture to use to answer your question, for your question is not found in scripture. The original question, "what kind of Baptist are you" is not a question based on scripture. It is not a doctrinal question. It is a question of self identity, history and definition. If the question is "what do you believe regarding the 5 points of Calvinism, give your position based on scripture reference", that's how I would have answered it. But I did not understand that to be the question. I understood it to be 'what kind of baptist are you". And I commented on my view of what kind of Baptists there are, and are not. Nothing is more twisted, however unintentional, in the hands of men quite like history is to meet their own needs, and nowhere is that shown more than in theological discussions the world over. And history is viewed through the prism of one's own culture, information and personal perception, that is true for both you and I. And if you go back and look at it, your question depends on heavily on any given person's view of history as to how they came to receive what they hold to be their identity.

So, do you want an honest answer regarding one's personal, historical identity as a Baptist, or do want a theological discussion regarding doctrine?

As for individual answers...

1. An assembly of believers is a local, autonomous congregation, not dictated by a pope in Rome, or an adulterous king in England.

2. God absolutely does save the individual, one at a time. Not sure what you were referring to there.

3. a. Separate from the world, separate from the government, separate from government organized, licensed and officially recognized "churches".
b. The fundamentals of the faith as taught from Scripture and believed by the early church.
c. I don't care a fig about being defined by you, anyone that takes such a unnecessary swipe at another brother on here not even in this conversation (bap4life) has is rude and disrespectful spirit. That wasn't necessary.

4. I don't need to define it. If you are even remotely evangelical, you know the definitions.

5. "Are you going to say a biblical Presbyterian is not saved?" What's the matter with you? How did this turn from one's definition of Baptist to doubting someone's salvation? That was foolish.

6. We do live in a doctrinal vacuum. I had a Mormon tell me that he believed a particular doctrine that was not in the Bible because "we don't live in a vacuum and we get truth and revelation as it is delivered to us by God down through the years".

Ga*1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Or this one...
Re*22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Re*22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

The scripture and all doctrine was complete upon...completion

7. Yes, I have a very narrow view of everything. I walk on the "narrow way" I serve a narrow God and black is a long way from white.

This probably didn't answer everything, and probably none of it to your satisfaction, but I can do no more.

PS - you owe bap4life an apology

 

[Still Standing]

i just reread my answering post to Iconclast above, and it was not very neat or clear in layout. I apologize for that, I know how to quote, but I can't figure out how to quote a quote.

Also, as I re-read it, the tone sounded pretty sharp to me. That was unintentional, and I apologize for that tone as well. I work in a machine shop to pay the bills, it's unheated and 100 degrees here this week. I'm tired, I type slow and I should be in bed.

Although I said what I meant, it didn't come out quite the way I intended. I am sorry.

 

[Iconoclast]

i just reread my answering post to Iconclast above, and it was not very neat or clear in layout. I apologize for that, I know how to quote, but I can't figure out how to quote a quote.

Also, as I re-read it, the tone sounded pretty sharp to me. That was unintentional, and I apologize for that tone as well. I work in a machine shop to pay the bills, it's unheated and 100 degrees here this week. I'm tired, I type slow and I should be in bed.

Although I said what I meant, it didn't come out quite the way I intended. I am sorry.

No problem SS,

I do not have thin skin. You can speak plainly to me...

 

[robt.k.fall]

And your point is? Please, note I did define how I was using Regular.
HSBC's founding declaration states

We hold to the doctrines as commonly held by the Regular Baptists.

It then went on to make specific statements as to how HSBC (then Zion Baptist) was to operate.

Historic Northern Regular (as in the R of GARBC, though I'm not affiliated with that association) Baptist. Think New Hampshire Confession and Hisocox's New Directory. Try parsing that.

and then there are the other regular Baptists - as opposed to Particular Baptists

 

[Iconoclast]

Still Standing

You're not getting it, and it's my fault because I have not been able to explain it clearly.

You were clear enough.

You say "go to scripture and make your case." That's my whole point. There is not scripture to use to answer your question, for your question is not found in scripture. The original question, "what kind of Baptist are you" is not a question based on scripture. It is not a doctrinal question.

Sure it is a doctrinal question. As soon as you go to scripture to define your theology...it is clearly a doctrinal question. When you define the teaching of scripture your answers define you.

If the question is "what do you believe regarding the 5 points of Calvinism, give your position based on scripture reference", that's how I would have answered it. But I did not understand that to be the question.

In this thread you stated this in post 112-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------I know this is going to really bother some folks, but I don't believe that a Calvinist can even be a Baptist in the true sense of the word. John Calvin was certainly not a Baptist, so how does one call themselves by the name of a theologian who is NOT baptist, and still be a Baptist in theology?[/QUOTE]

Are you claiming that someone who believes in believers baptism ...cannot see in his bible what Calvin or the Reformers saw in their bible? this is an absurdity. Particular Baptists saw the same things in their bibles. I believe the Apostles were Reformed Baptists and Calvinistic in soteriology,and eccliesiology before Calvin was even born.
They had a Baptist view of Covenant theology, before the reformation from rome took place.....The term is a modern term [reformed Baptist] and clarifies the defective view most evangelicals have of an antinomoian view of the law, and a completely defective view of biblical covenants...embracing flawed dispensational teaching.

I understood it to be 'what kind of baptist are you". And I commented on my view of what kind of Baptists there are, and are not. Nothing is more twisted, however unintentional, in the hands of men quite like history is to meet their own needs, and nowhere is that shown more than in theological discussions the world over. And history is viewed through the prism of one's own culture, information and personal perception, that is true for both you and I. And if you go back and look at it, your question depends on heavily on any given person's view of history as to how they came to receive what they hold to be their identity.

That is fine...but it still comes down to scripture...how you define what is the "faith once for all time" delivered to the saints.

So, do you want an honest answer regarding one's personal, historical identity as a Baptist, or do want a theological discussion regarding doctrine?

it is both you cannot divide what you believe from who you are. You live and act based on what you believe...

you continued in post 112;

A "Reformed" Baptist? A "Covenant Theology" Baptist? We may as well add "Charismatic" Baptist, Universal (catholic) Church Baptist or "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Baptists".

Because you do not like the terms or perhaps the teaching does not mean it does not exist. trying to go to absurdity does not halt the discussion.
As for individual answers...

1. An assembly of believers is a local, autonomous congregation, not dictated by a pope in Rome, or an adulterous king in England

.

They have a belief in common....believers believe something, and someone.

2. God absolutely does save the individual, one at a time. Not sure what you were referring to there

.

yes he does save one person[an individual] at a time....but he builds us together around doctrinal truth.
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

3. a. Separate from the world, separate from the government, separate from government organized, licensed and officially recognized "churches".

what constitutes biblical separation is a large topic all by itself.

b. The fundamentals of the faith as taught from Scripture and believed by the early church.

but defined by you here??? what was taught is at issue. According to your posting what is today called Calvinism has no part in that truth. I think if you are not teaching what is called Calvinism.. you are of necessity teaching error and defective theology and not what the church has taught.

c. I don't care a fig about being defined by you,

what you post and offer is not immune from being answered.you stated what you did...no one forced you to. You have been answered.

anyone that takes such a unnecessary swipe at another brother on here not even in this conversation (bap4life) has is rude and disrespectful spirit. That wasn't necessary

.

I answer this later on....you have not been around long enough to know what he does....I posted examples below...that is all he does, even though several have tried to interact with him.. he accuses then hides.

4. I don't need to define it. If you are even remotely evangelical, you know the definitions.

not everyone has the same definitions, that is why a few have asked you to clarify your statement.

5. "Are you going to say a biblical Presbyterian is not saved?" What's the matter with you? How did this turn from one's definition of Baptist to doubting someone's salvation? That was foolish.

if you are going to say that Baptists who believe some of the same things as a biblical Presbyterian have no place in a Baptist church, I am asking for your view of biblical Presbyterians then....Are you saying they are not Christians, are you saying the teaching and those who hold it are wrong?

If biblical Presbyterians are Christians, are saved by the blood of Christ, then it stands to reason we could share the same soteriology and yet differ on believers baptism.

6. We do live in a doctrinal vacuum. I had a Mormon tell me that he believed a particular doctrine that was not in the Bible because "we don't live in a vacuum and we get truth and revelation as it is delivered to us by God down through the years".

Ga*1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

it is only because of clearly defined ...DOCTRINE...that we can tell the Mormon he is wrong...even though they immerse those who believe in the book of Mormon.

The scripture and all doctrine was complete upon...completion

yes it was...but the question again becomes what is the faith once delivered to the saints?

7. Yes, I have a very narrow view of everything. I walk on the "narrow way" I serve a narrow God and black is a long way from white.

again..it should not be more narrow than scripture makes it...I think you are doing that.

This probably didn't answer everything, and probably none of it to your satisfaction, but I can do no more.

I work long days also....I understand that....I do not take offence to your post, I would rather have you vigorously present your view and offer your views as best as you can. It is good to see saints who get excited about the word and contending for the faith, without being contentious.

PS - you owe bap4life an apology

Not at all. he speaks against Calvinists all the time; here

Amen!!! I feel exactly the same! Could not have said it better. I'm an IFB, and neither one of those doctrines are Baptist doctrine. I'm not sure what you Arminian/Calvinists are, but "'Baptist'' you are not, IMHO.

Yes, I read everything I post. Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you. I stand on my statement that Calvinism/Arminianism have no place in a Baptist church. I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. Both are wrong. I am a born again Christian. Period. Not an ''Arminian Christian'' nor a ''Calvinist Christian''.

Do you ever post without negativity? That's one of the most telling things about Calvinists, IMHO, ......they're extremely arrogant and condescending towards people who disagree with them. I've yet to meet one, in person, or on the internet, who isn't that way. I won't dialogue with those people (you) whenever it's possible to avoid them.

The articles I linked to are against Calvinism <-----That I do agree with. I'm as opposed to Calvinism as you can get!

To say we are not Baptists is quite lame. in fact I think he cannot present a biblical position on the thing he is critical of...he has been asked to do so several times and has not made such an attempt.
He does this all the time...he never uses a verse of scripture to answer any of us...he hides behind others like you who will attempt an answer...but he offers nothing but personal attacks.

 

[tyndale1946]

I'm a Baptist... That was baptized by immersion... In the name of the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost! Is there another kind I don't know about? Did ALL you Baptist come in the same way?... Don't get mad just checkin... Btw I'm the Bible believing kind and leave it at that... AMEN!:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jkdbuck76]

WARNING!! ---- With a post like this one, you just might be subject to being BANNED from BB!!

Other folks have been summarily banned for making such bold and brazen statements as this, my friend!!















:smilewinkgrin::smilewinkgrin::laugh::laugh:

I think the fact that I bring levity is the main reason I've been tolerated all these years.

Srsly, I think a thread like this can be good because we need to know what we believe, why we believe it, and be able to convey as much to others.

 

[Rippon]

Yes, I have heard of many "Calvinist Baptists of the 19th century".

You have just "heard" of them? You haven't read any of their books or know much about their lives and doctrine?

I never said there were never Calvinists who called themselves Baptist.

So they don't measure-up to your standard of what an authentic Baptist is? That's a strange way of wording things :"Calvinists who call themselves Baptist." In your mind they can't actually be real honest-to-goodness Baptists.

No, I'm not a protestant.

Yes you are. You're in denial (and I don't mean the river in Egypt).

What you need to do is to research things a good deal. Find out what some Baptist scholars say. Have you heard of :Gerald L. Priest, Chris Traffanstedt, Nathan Finn, Michael A.G. Haykin and James Renihan? These are living Baptist scholars. You can find messages of Finn, Haykin and Renihan on sermonaudio.com.

I care nothing for the opinion of anyone else regarding Augustine.

Well you better. You called him unregenerate. That's rather nasty of you --completely uncalled for.

If they were caught up in the flowery language and missed what he actually said, they are not alone.

Who and what are you talking about in the above?

He was a renown orator in his own day, and has been for centuries.

He was not a renown orator. He was a pastor and theologian of the early Church. Instead of running around calling godly men of the past unregenerate --you need to actuallly read some of Augustine's works. Get your hat ready for munching later.

Here are just a few of his quotes and tell me if they sound like the words of an unsaved person.

God has made us for Himself, our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.

If you believe what you like in the Gospel, and reject what you don't like, it is not the Gospel you believe, but yourself.

A Christian should be an Alleluia from head to foot.

The Holy Scriptures are our letters from home.

You are my God. my life, my holy DELIGHT, but is this enough to say of you? Can any man say enough when he speaks of you? Yet woe betide those who are silent about you!
__________________________________________________________

The following are just a few Baptist of recent years who appreciate Augustine: Steve Lawson, John Piper, John MacArthur, Dr. Al Mohler, Mark Dever, Alistair Begg and a fellow you may be familiar with --Charles H. Spurgeon. I'll throw in A.W. Tozer for honorable mention though he wasn't a Baptist.

I have spent years with my Bible, my Webster's 1828 dictionary

Are you KJVP or KJVO?

 

[Yeshua1]

How have we gotten to the point where to be a Baptist means one MUST be either a calvinist/Arminian/IBF/Non etc?

Isn't the truth that NONE of that really has defined what being a baptist is, but the main distinctives such as a seperation of church/state in religion, each church can govern as sees fit, each believer able to interprete the Bible for themselves, bible as inpired word of the lord etc?