Why should one be a Baptist instead of simply being...

[Walter]

If you really want to discuss UNIVERSALISM (everyone will be saved eventually), then you should probably start a topic for that with these verses posted and then they can be discussed one at a time in context (plus contrary verses).

This topic seemed to be about something else and I don't know if you really want to open that can of worms here.

I have noticed Mur avoids using the term 'Universalism'. His belief is just that. I lived in Massachusetts for some time and it wasn't unusual to see churches that identified themselves as Universalists and even sometimes in parentheses would be the word 'Trinitarian'. Apparently not all Universalists are Unitarian, however, I found all of them to be ultra liberal and usually had a relationship with the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ and other ultra liberal 'Christian' denominations.

I suspect he will not find a church that is willing to allow him to influence others with this belief for long. As was said maybe a local church might give him time to abandon this belief.

 

[Zaatar71]

I have noticed Mur avoids using the term 'Universalism'. His belief is just that. I lived in Massachusetts for some time and it wasn't unusual to see churches that identified themselves as Universalists and even sometimes in parentheses would be the word 'Trinitarian'. Apparently not all Universalists are Unitarian, however, I found all of them to be ultra liberal and usually had a relationship with the United Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ and other ultra liberal 'Christian' denominations.

I suspect he will not find a church that is willing to allow him to influence others with this belief for long. As was said maybe a local church might give him time to abandon this belief.

He is here to help clarify what he has discovered so far. seeing verses offered, he will filter out error.

 

[atpollard]

I have noticed Mur avoids using the term 'Universalism'. His belief is just that.

I am not sure that Mur‘s belief is “universalism” in the traditional sense of the term. His emphasis seems to be an eschatological delivery of all under Christ (which could be closer to a denial of ECT than a belief in universal salvation). At the risk of excessive punning … “the Devil is in the details”.

 

[Mur]

If you really want to discuss UNIVERSALISM (everyone will be saved eventually), then you should probably start a topic for that with these verses posted and then they can be discussed one at a time in context (plus contrary verses).

This topic seemed to be about something else and I don't know if you really want to open that can of worms here.

Ok. I created a new thread here:

Will Jesus succeed at uniting all things to himself?

Ephesians 1:9-10 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. It is God's will that ALL THINGS be united in Jesus and then given over to...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[Mur]

He is here to help clarify what he has discovered so far. seeing verses offered, he will filter out error.

I created a new thread for that discussion here:

Will Jesus succeed at uniting all things to himself?

Ephesians 1:9-10 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. It is God's will that ALL THINGS be united in Jesus and then given over to...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[Mur]

You believe you are now a 'Bible believer'. The problem is that you hold to a belief that is sharply at odds with conservative evangelicalism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy To my knowledge, there's no such thing as a 'Bible believing' universalist church. Universalists identifying as Christians believe the Bible is historically incorrect and not that relevant to the 21st century. At least that's been my observation.

I created a thread for this discussion.

Will Jesus succeed at uniting all things to himself?

Ephesians 1:9-10 making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. It is God's will that ALL THINGS be united in Jesus and then given over to...

www.baptistboard.com

 

[David Lamb]

My response to them would be to show me in the Bible.

After rejecting Catholicism 9 years ago I began studying the Bible and listening to countless preachers and I just went where the Bible took me and still do.

Thanks for your feedback!

It always seems to be believers who were baptised in the bible. When Philip was asked for baptism by the Ethiopian. he said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may (be baptised)." The jailer and his household believed before they were baptised. In the bible, we don't find church and state linked.

 

[canadyjd]

I believe that Jesus will succeed at uniting ALL THINGS to himself. In other words, I believe that ALL who ever existed will be in God's Kingdom. Is a Baptist permitted to hold this doctrine?

Ephesians 1:9-10
making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

I would rejoice if that were true.

However, there are far too many passages that clearly state it isn’t true.

Jesus stated few find the narrow way to heaven and many follow the broad way to destruction. Jesus will declare to many on the day of judgement “depart from Me, I never knew you” and they are cast out.

There are many other passages that proclaim not all, in fact, not many, are going to heaven.

We should weep over that truth and pray for God’s mercy.

Again, I’d rejoice if all went to heaven, but scripture says otherwise.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

I believe that Jesus will succeed at uniting ALL THINGS to himself. In other words, I believe that ALL who ever existed will be in God's Kingdom. Is a Baptist permitted to hold this doctrine?

Ephesians 1:9-10
making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.

Yes, there are Baptists and Baotist denominations who hold that position.

The Primitive Baptist Universalist teach that there is no Hell as S rioture teaches ?no "Second Death". Instead they teach that hell is something people experience in this world (as is sin).

It is a form of "hyper-Calvinism" (they take seriously the passage that God desires none perish and conclude therefore that none perish based on divine sovereignty). Bill Leonard described their belief as "pressing Calvinism to its logical, or illogical, conclusion).

They are a very small sect, so I doubt you will find any.

My point is merely that there are Baotists who hold your view.

 

[Walter]

Yes, there are Baptists and Baotist denominations who hold that position.

The Primitive Baptist Universalist teach that there is no Hell as S rioture teaches ?no "Second Death". Instead they teach that hell is something people experience in this world (as is sin).

It is a form of "hyper-Calvinism" (they take seriously the passage that God desires none perish and conclude therefore that none perish based on divine sovereignty). Bill Leonard described their belief as "pressing Calvinism to its logical, or illogical, conclusion).

They are a very small sect, so I doubt you will find any.

My point is merely that there are Baotists who hold your view.

From my reading, less than 1,000 Baptists adhere to this view.

I was not aware there were any universalist outside of liberal mainline denominations. I guess the difference between the OP and this group (universalist Baptists) would be their belief that hell only exists in this life where, if I understand correctly,Mur believes hell exists after death as a purification for those rejecting Christ in this life, just not an eternal place of torment. I learn new things all the time on the BB.

 

[easternstar]

From reading this thread, I believe my view is close to Mur's, although not exactly the same. Apart from that, I'd say annihilationism is closer to scripture and less horrible than the doctrine of eternal punishment.

Oh, and I'm not liberal.

 

[Salty]

2. Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church’s beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a “member” of any other body. (
Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, 19, 23)

7. Two Offices
The Bible mandates only two offices in the church: elder and deacon. The three terms—”pastor”, “elder”, and “bishop/overseer”—all refer to the same office. The two offices of elder and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church. (
1 Timothy 3:1-13; Acts 20:17-38; Philippians 1:1)

8. Separation of Church and State
God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government’s purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and the church’s purposes in Matthew 28:19-20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government.
 (Matthew 22:15-22; Acts 15:17-29)

# 2 Actually, I do not see where those Scriptures state that a church cannot be a member of an outside organization.
Tx
# 7 Actually, I do not see a deacon as an officer of the church. Rather deacons are a servant and should not have any authority over church matters.

#8 To what degree? You state: " He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation.". So are you saying that the Army should not pay Chaplains. Are you saying that a church should not have an American Flag in its sanctuary? And I can give another 100+ examples...

BTW - those points you made came from a booklet entitle "Biblical basis for Baptists" and written by Dr. L. Duane Brown.
I did now Dr. Brown very well! I first met him at Camp Bayouca, (being State Rep of the Empire State Fellowship of Regular Bap) where he was Dean (back then he was taller than me!) I met him in Texas where he was a pastor and the moderator of the Texas Fellowship of Reg Bap, I stopped off to see him when he was President of Denver Bible Baptist College, and then in the Late '80's I visited him in his home in New Jersery.
Not saying I agree with Dr. Brown, but he was a wonderful man and servant of the Lord. He entered the Gates of Heaven in Oct of 2023. I look forward to re-unite him in the presence of the Lord.

 

[Salty]

Oh, and I'm not liberal.

But what does Liberal mean? One definition is to give freely. I want to help others and give freely - what I don't like is the govt giving my money away freely. I like full accountability!

 

[Salty]

But what does Liberal mean? One definition is to give freely. I want to help others and give freely - what I don't like is the govt giving my money away freely. I like full accountability!

Adding to that a bit - I want to help the needy, not the greedy

 

[Ascetic X]

@atpollard said paedo, in paedobaptism, means “family”. Wrong.

Paedo is from the Greek word pais (paid-), meaning "child".

Paedobaptism is baptizing children.

 

[Zaatar71]

I guess that's sort of my point, but in reverse. Why do Baptists identify as such rather than just calling themselves followers of Jesus, as I and others do? We don't belong to a man-made organization; we belong to Jesus's Church, which is his body of faithful followers.

I understand why Catholics call themselves that but their beliefs and doctrines often don't align with the word of God. But in the case of Baptists and a non-denominational such as myself, I don't discern any doctrinal difference. Essentially, I suspect, you and I are both roses, but of other names.

Jesus taught us that we should believe ,then be baptized. He did not teach that you are baptized or "christened" as a baby, with "god-parents" renouncing satan for you. In the NT. those who believed, openly confessed their faith openly by being baptized publicly showing they Identified with the massage of the Cross

 

[Ascetic X]

I don’t believe that paedobaptism, baptizing babies of Christian parents, is biblical. There is no record of it ever being done in the New Testament. Water baptism is a conscious obedience as a result of believing in Christ, which a baby is unable to do.

However, I think dedicating a baby to the Lord, perhaps accompanied by special ceremony, robes, prayers, and anointing with oil, would be very nice and edifying, something parents could treasure. It too would be extra-biblical, but not unreasonable or contradictory of biblical truths.

Contemporary rock music worship services are also not found in the first century apostolic church, but I guess are not necessarily anti-biblical, as long as they are not repetitious hypnotic praise choruses or performed with women in scanty provocative worldly attire.

 

[atpollard]

@atpollard said paedo, in paedobaptism, means “family”. Wrong.

Paedo is from the Greek word pais (paid-), meaning "child".

Paedobaptism is baptizing children.

While technically correct (concerning the linguistic root of the term), it is misleading concerning the theological roots of the term.

Why do Presbyterians baptize babies?
(is it because they think that babies have repented and believed, or because they think that God calls “entire families” into a new covenant relationship?)

 

[easternstar]

While technically correct (concerning the linguistic root of the term), it is misleading concerning the theological roots of the term.

Why do Presbyterians baptize babies?
(is it because they think that babies have repented and believed, or because they think that God calls “entire families” into a new covenant relationship?)

Presbyterians are certainly covenantal in their theology.

 

[Ascetic X]

Jesus was not baptized as a baby. If any baby should have been baptized as a sign of the new covenant of grace, one would surely think it would be the baby Jesus. But Jesus was baptized as a man of about 30 years old.

And again, there is no record of any babies being baptized in the New Testament.

As a believer goes under the water, they should imagine their old nature dying and being buried symbolically, then the emerging out of the water represents new life in Christ. Thus, baptism has a profound significance to be remembered and treasured. None of this happens when a baby is baptized.

Also, “covenant people”, “covenant children”, or “covenant relationship” phrases do not appear anywhere in the New Testament. These terms were invented to make baptism seem to be similar to circumcision as a sign of God’s covenant with Israel in the Old Testament.

But the new covenant sign is actually communion, not baptism.

• Luke 22:20:
  "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is poured out for you." This verse is central to the Lord's Supper (communion) and explains that the new covenant is established through Jesus's sacrifice.

While technically correct (concerning the linguistic root of the term), it is misleading concerning the theological roots of the term.

Why do Presbyterians baptize babies?
(is it because they think that babies have repented and believed, or because they think that God calls “entire families” into a new covenant relationship?)