[daniel1212]

Firstly, there is no generic "Protestantism" - Lutherans are far closer to Catholic belief in terms of Baptism, Priesthood etc. than Baptists are, while Unitarians are even further away.

Then tell that to your comrades, none of whom ever denied a "generic "Protestantism" in all my years with them, but whom refer to Protestantism as just that, a one-size fits all. And you never showed any reason why I should not assume you did not subscribe to that convenient broadbrush in order to engage in the RC favorite pastime of attacking Protestantism, whatever that may include.

Why else would you post the article? Are you now concerned about Baptist losing moral capital?

Secondly, these are human failings, not theological questions - I see no reason why the points raised by Mr Mohler have an impact on the SBC's Christology

All moral acts flow from belief, and which is not restricted to Christology, and morality and church discipline are doctrinal issues.

[Cronos]

Why don't you tell your comrades?

Sheesh. You think that you, a baptist, or a lutehran or a Methodist or Anglican or Jehovah's Witness or Pentecostal or whatever speak the same?

All of you have individual beliefs.

[Cronos]

There is no common Protestant belief. After years of debating and discussing with people under that umbrella term, I have realized enough that Baptists consider Methodists incorrect and Lutherans disagree with Pentecostals etc so it is quite incorrect to club all together in any discussion.

[Cronos]

"Why would you post the article?" - because it is:

1. News worthy of discussion
2. Shows a leader willing to tackle the problem head on rather than many posters here trying to deflect by saying "oh, Catholics are worse"

"Baptists" losing moral capital - just a the term "Protestant" is a broad brush, there are lots of groups who call themselves Baptists whose belief systems and morals diverge considerably. This is as there is no central theme of belief. Just as Oneness Pentecostals, who say the Trinity is false, are indubitably pentecostals (as they hold to "only bible" and "only grace"), so too the umbrella term is too broad in the absence of a standardized dogma.

[Cronos]

The first Baptist congregations were organized in the beginning of the seventeenth century. Almost at the very start, the denomination was divided into "Arminian", or "General" Baptists, so named because of their belief in the universal character of Christ's redemption, and "Calvinistic" or "Particular" Baptists, who maintained that Christ's redemption was intended for the elect alone.

The origin of the General Baptists is connected with the name of John Smyth (d. 1612), pastor of a church at Gainsborough, Lincolnshire, which had separated from the Church of England. About 1606, pastor and flock, to escape persecution, emigrated to Amsterdam, where they formed the second English congregation. In 1609, Smyth, owing possibly in some measure to Mennonite influence, rejected infant baptism, although he retained affusion. In this he was supported by his church

Some members of the congregation returned to England (1611 or 1612) under the leadership of Helwys (c. 1550-1616) and formed in London the nucleus of the first Baptist community.

It was between 1640 and 1660 that the General Baptists began to claim that immersion was the only valid mode of baptism. They were persecuted by Charles II (1660-85); but the Act of Toleration (1689) brought relief and recognized the Baptists as the third dissenting denomination (Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists). In the eighteenth century, Anti-Trinitarian ideas spread among the General Baptists, and by 1750, many, perhaps the majority of them, had become Unitarians.

So you talking about "Baptists losing their morals" is difficult to agree or disagree with considering the amorphous and evolving description of this decentralized group terminology