Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
If you think you're confused Baptists are more confused. Here are some good articles and small excerpts that might explain some of the questions being raised about Baptists:
Baptist Beginnings by Leon McBeth
A lot of people ask these questions. We want to know about our denominational roots. To know our beginnings will help us understand ourselves today.
These sound like simple questions, and one might expect brief and simple answers. The story of Baptist beginnings, however, is surprisingly complicated; and not everyone agrees on the conclusions. Perhaps this is one reason such questions have been so controversial in the past.
Some people try to trace organized Baptist churches back to New Testament times or to John the Baptist. One writer even suggested that Adam was the first Baptist! Certainly we believe that our doctrine and faith root in the New Testament, but we first meet our organized denomination considerably this side of Adam.
Our best historical evidence says that Baptists came into existence in England in the early seventeenth century. They apparently emerged out of the Puritan-Separatist movement in the Church of England. Some of these earnest people read the Bible in their own language, believed it, and sought to live by it. They formed separate congregations which accepted only believers into their membership, and they baptized converts upon their profession of faith. Their opponents nicknamed them "Baptists," and the name stuck.
Protestants are the Christians who emerged in Europe in the sixteenth century to emphasize the authority of Scripture, the priesthood of believers, and salvation by grace. Major categories of Protestants include Lutherans, Reformed (Zwinglian and Calvinistic), Anabaptists, and the Church of England. Major heroic figures emerged in the Protestant groups, including Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, Balthasar Hubmaier, Conrad Grebel, Menno Simons, and Thomas Cranmer.
One of the major marks of Protestantism has been confessional development. As each of the Reformers reacted against the Medieval Catholic tradition in one way or another, they sought to define their beliefs in terms of “confessions” or statements of their beliefs. At meetings like the Colloquy of Marburg (1529) and the Diet of Speyer (1529), the confessions were presented in support of basic beliefs of the new groups. These confessions later gave shape to “denominations” as we know them today.
Baptists came along in historical development in the next century after the rise of the original Protestant denominations. They identified quickly with many of the teachings and practices of the Anabaptists, such as affirming the authority of the Bible, religious liberty, believer’s baptism, and religious experience. But, Luther’s teaching on the love of God and the priesthood of believers was also important to Baptists. John Calvin’s understanding of the sovereignty of God, God’s grace, the atonement of Christ, and the sacraments/ordinances were picked up by many early English and American Baptists. Zwingli’s positions on the simplicity of worship and the authority of Scripture were also definitive for early Baptists. Thomas Cranmer’s work in the Book of Common Prayer (1549) shaped the worship practices of many, both directly and indirectly. So, the debt of Baptists to earlier Protestants was indeed great.
In their first century of development in seventeenth-century England, three basic types of Baptists cooperated with several other “Protestant” groups. General Baptists worked with Seventh Day Baptists in exchanging pulpits, and Calvinistic Baptists wrote confessions of faith that imitated those of Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Baptists and Quakers sought common cause in religious toleration in the Restoration Period. Most importantly of all, Baptists joined Congregationalists and Presbyterians in forming the Three Dissenting Denominations, a body of political advocates that sought to gain concessions from the established Church for marriages, burials, and political rights of dissenters.
Many Baptists worldwide have continued to think of themselves as Protestants and interacted with other Protestants in significant ways. In launching the world missionary movement of the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, for instance, Baptists joined Protestants in sending missionaries and cooperating with other groups like Presbyterians and Congregationalists overseas. In the United States, Baptists joined with other groups in promoting spiritual awakenings like camp meetings and the Great Revivals. In England, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, and Presbyterians joined to form the Bible Society cause in 1802.
Doctrinal Dissent and Individual Conscience
This emphasis upon the rights of individual conscience caused Baptists to create organizational and denominational structures that protected this right. Baptist churches, associations, societies, conventions, and denominations maintained a relative autonomy that allowed groups of Baptists to disagree with each other and to form new organizations when theological differences became too great. While Baptists were loosely held together by common beliefs about baptism and personal, experiential faith in Jesus Christ, doctrinal uniformity was impossible given the Baptist insistence upon soul freedom, church freedom, Bible freedom, and religious freedom.[2] Baptists who disagreed theologically with other Baptists in a church, association, or denomination were always free to move down the street and start a new organization.
Exactly - *HE* taught it to us. Without His teaching and intervention, our prayers were/are useless.
Do you then ignore the scripture I posted explaining Christ's intercession?
Do you then seek to hamper the power of Christ's atonement?
"Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me"
"For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."
"Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son"
"If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it."
You can't ignore Christ's own words on this subject.
He is our intercession, He is our mediator, we can do nothing apart from Him.
>>But, do understand, that it is not for the lack of God's desire to save them.<<
I certainly hope you're not suggesting that God is not able to save whom He pleases to save?
If He wanted everyone saved, everyone would be saved. It's His kingdom.
Contrary to popular thinking, God is not up in heaven, wringing his hands, wistfully hoping that people will accept him. Like some teenage girl waiting for the phone to ring on a Friday night.
Romans 9:18 - "So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills."
Dead men cannot choose life - it is given to them.
Even the Southern Baptist website refutes the "successionist" theory. It only takes a little bit of research to find that all of the heresies that successionists try to link their heritages to have absolutely nothing in common with each other EXCEPT for being called heretics by Catholics. Many of the heresies that successionists try to trace their ancestry through are diametrically opposed to each other. Thus, this successionist theory is utterly ridiculous and contrived to try to gain it some legitimacy.
Regards
>>Additionally if you Goggle on Reformed Baptists you'll find a site dedicated to those Baptists of the Reformed belief.<<
Reformed Baptist here - of the only Reformed Baptist church in RI. Part of the SBC, planted in the 1970's.
My family and I left a very arminian baptist church when we saw that the theology they professed was very liberal. The pastor adopted the Warren theology of Church-growth, and we left shortly after.
That is one of the best points I've seen made in quite awhile that takes the Reformers to task. Yours is an excellent question. Why NOT Orthdoxy, rather than a total break, IF Rome was so evil?
Brother in Christ
Regeneration produces a godly sorrow that grieves when we sin. We are aware of our sin and are quickened to mortify it. Of course, people backslide and become lazy in their sanctification, but that is due to a lack of obedience, not necessarily a lack of faith.
To accept what you believe, one would have to ignore Exekiel 36:25-27
"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." He does it, we don't. Dead men cannot choose life.
You disappoint me. Christ told us to DO WHAT THEY SAY! Thus, according to you, Christ commanded us to follow heretical teachings...
These same heresies have been repeated by Rome while claiming to be in the Seat of Peter.
Which heresies does Rome repeat that the Pharisees taught (which Christ told us to follow)? How can the Spirit of Truth be the Father of Lies simultaneously?
The Catholic Church has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud
And like the Talmud, Catholic ecclesiastical tradition is not defined as infallible dogma. Traditions may be only local, or for a particular time. All traditions are not Apostolic.
Jesus clearly condemned the traditions that the Pharisees had added to the Law of God
No He didn't. He condemned traditions that circumvented or abrogated or ignored the Law of God. Anything that brings man closer to God is not condemned by Christ. Christ HIMSELF followed Jewish traditions.
The RC Church has repeated this mistake.
Which "mistakes" did the entire Roman Catholic Church make in the teaching of faith or morals?
Regards
That very concept refutes the whole idea of "absolute assurance" of salvation.
Regards
Quite frankly you both still do not understand the vast theological differences. The Reformers could not run to Orthodoxy any more then they could reformed the Catholic Church. The theological differences as illustrated by Luther with his bondage and Erasmus with his free will are two seperate views. The simple fact that many Protestants who have abandoned Luther/Calvin's view and no longer find much disagreement with Catholicism should make that evident.
And from your lips (or keystrokes), you have merely affirmed that Luther/Calvin's view were innovations, never held by the Church. Perhaps the reason why so many Protestants (according to you, as you are a better judge than I am of this phenomenom) are being led away from this "total depravity" doctrine is that the Spirit is trying to undo the damage done by the first Protestant revolters? Perhaps people are seeing it was a big mistake in the first place to leave the visible Church of Christ?
Regards
You confuse God given Law and the man-made law (tradition) of the Pharisees.
Matthew 15: 1-3
Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!" Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
The "tradition of men" had taken the place of, and had nullified, the commandments of the Word of God.
Matt 23:1-39
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
"Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them 'Rabbi.'
"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ. The greatest among you will be your servant. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell? Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing. Look, your house is left to you desolate. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."
Regards
Does Christ condemn the PRACTICE of hand-washing or does He condemn the ATTITUDE that places the ritual above the MEANING behind the ritual?
As you probably know, not everyone was required to hand wash, according to the Law. This was a priestly function. However, the Pharisees, in their effort to take to heart the Mosaic understanding that ALL the nation were "priests" (Peter wasn't the first to say that the People of God were a priestly nation!), tried to enact this ritual among everyone. All of their followers, thus, practiced hand-washing and other such priestly rituals, because they wanted to be closer to God - as often as possible. The very fact that the Pharisees asked this question to Christ tells us that He was of the Pharisaical "school" (as opposed to Sadducees or Essene). Thus, I ask you:
Do you think Christ was opposing the attitude that men should try to get closer to God, or was Christ opposing the focus on the ritual ITSELF? By focusing on the ritual and forgeting about the sign it pointed to, the Pharisees were "nullifying the Will of God".
In Matthew's long condemnation of the Pharisees, again, Christ does NOT condemn the act of giving more tithe, or fasting more often! He was condemning those who were proud of their "works" while forgeting the heart of the Law, justice and mercy.
Thus, Christ is not condemning ALL such traditions. In reality, the only tradition that I see Him condemning is Corban, the idea of circumventing the responsibility a son had to his parents by "depositing" his money into the Temple bank. This, obviously, is nullifying the Fourth Commandment - to honor our mother and father. The rest, I believe, are Christ condemning incorrect ATTITUDES. Proof of this is when Christ tells His Apostles to OBEY the Pharisees - obey what they TELL them - but NOT do what they do -- meaning, the Apostles were to ALSO obey the same traditions, but without the pride and improper focus.
Regards
Oh, I think all of the Latins and Orthodox here fully understand the vast theological differences between the Apostolic Faith and Protestantism. My original comment was highlight what I think is a fairy tale told by Protestants, namely that the Reformation was simply a reaction against an oppressive Roman Church. It wasn't. It was in fact a wholesale rejection of 1500 years of teaching; in other words, a mass apostasy, precisely the "new gospel" +Maximos the Confessor warned against. To claim that the ever multiplying groups which came out of the Reformation somehow or other represent The One Church in its pure form, a Church cleansed of worldly and oppressive accretions, is simply hogwash. Wouldn't it be more honest to simply state, boldly and forthrightly, that a new church or churches was/were created by the Reformation, something quite different from that established, at least as to form and substance, at Pentecost and claim that that new church was the work of the Holy Spirit correcting another human screw-up?
So you do understand the danger of a works based faith? You do understand the arrogance of a clergy that insists on being called "Father" and parades around in fine garments. A clergy that ties heavy burdens of works on the backs of the people. You do understand these things?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.