Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Baptist Briders.


Recommended Posts

  • Members
No one can knowingly reject any Scripture and be right with the Lord.


That's not what I said Jerry. You seem to ignore the general post and focus in myopically on snippets. I said one could reject the Baptist Distinctives and still be right with God.

The Baptist distinctives are not on par with scripture beloved. They are not the same thing.



Not a doctrine? Doctrine means teaching - and those Distinctives are very clearly taught in the Word of God.

Again, there are distinctives and there is doctrine. You are saying that unless I agree with your interpretation I cannot be right with God. All of those Baptist distinctives are NOT clearly taught in the word of God. I gave three examples of them that I could reject and still be right with God. Why not address the three I gave instead of run off with three others I never mentioned?


Is Believer's baptism by immersion a preference? No, its a doctrine.

I never mentioned the mode of baptism. And the truth is, since it is not condusive to salvation of the soul, yes, one can be right with God who was not immersed by a Baptist church. You are one example as I recall your testimony.


Is having two offices in a local church a preference? No, the Bible only teaches that there are two offices. And, no, the Bible does not teach that there MUST be a deacon - only that pastors and deacons are the two offices.


So, your point is?? :uuhm: Exactly what I was saying. So, ther eis a baptist distinctive that has no bearing on my relation with God.

Is the Bible being our sole authority a preference or a doctrine? Obviously a doctrine - 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:3-4 are good places to look for that.


Like I said, you fastened on a few of the distinctives, yet ignored the buyk of my post. In fact, I wonder if you really think about what I wrote. Will you still claim the Waldenses as your heritage, and make them some kind of IFB predecessor? If you are wrong on them, would you admit it? Or will you just hold off touching the subject as is you manner when someone challenges your position and you cannot support it outside of sheer tradition?


Not a doctrine? Doctrine means teaching - and those Distinctives are very clearly taught in the Word of God.


I know what the word doctrine means. I have showed that the Baptist Distinctives you listed are not obligatory doctrines that all Christians must hold to. Of the 8 you listed, I see only 1 that is a non negotiable teaching from the word of God.

Another for instance. If my church uses the word "elder" in place of "pastor" or "bishop" in place of "elder", what difference does it make? None. If my church has no deacons, does that violate a biblical doctrine? No. So how can you say that those distincitves are on par with Bible truths as though they were all one and the same thing? They are not. They are Baptist in origin and nature. They need not be holden to for one to have a right standing with the Lord.

I suppose we could round and round, and that is what I meant when I said you make the word of God none effect by your tradition (read that "distinctives") as it seems you would have them synomous with the word of God.

I would like you to write that list again and put the scripture next to them that supports or mandates said distinctive. It would prove to be interesting to say the least.

God bless Jerry,

Calvary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
I said one could reject the Baptist Distinctives and still be right with God.


They are still Scripture, and to knowingly reject the Word of God is sin - whether it is the fundamentals, Baptist Distinctives, or anything else that has been clearly taught from (or found within) the Word of God.

Believer's Baptism by Immersion -

Acts 8:36-38 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

Baptism is a picture of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection - only immersion pictures that:

Romans 6:4-5 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Also, the word baptize means to immerse, to plunge in.

There. That's one. Looks like Bible doctrine to me. There are other passages that could also be added to this. I am at work so am unable to address the other Distinctives - perhaps someone else could quote or list some passages for each.

As far as two offices in the local church, Titus 1 and 1 Timothy 3 give the requirements for those offices - and those passages quite clearly show that there are only two.

Forget the smokescreen - a pastor is a bishop is an elder. These are interchangeable terms emphasizing different aspects of the same office. So it does not contradict me or Scripture to call your pastor (indicating he is a shepherd) an elder (indicating spiritual maturity) or a bishop (indicating being an overseer). However, it does contradict Scripture to have a deacon run church or to have a Bishop over an area, rather than head of one church.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be funny, but would it be unscriptural to baptise someone in a bathtub...if there's enough water to be immersed in? Thanks!


No it is not unscriptural. Immersion of a believer is the only scriptural specification. If for some reason circumstances dictated a bathtub no big deal. I knew some missionaries that had to baptise in a inflatable kiddie pool do to lack of a better place. :Green
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Jerry I asked for the list because I am interested.

I know you may think I am anti Baptist, but I am not. What I am is though is anti tradition. I despise it for the sake of it alone.

Now we already agreed on the Two Offices. What my point was, are they mandatory, not what they are or the requirements of them. If they are not an absolute to the church, then, why do they form part of your doctrinal base on whether or not a Christian is right with God or not.

As far as a smoke screen :huh: I don't get it.


I will be leaving for a week as I am taking my son to a Bible College in the States to enroll.

I am interested in the verses you would use to support that acronym.
I already can think of several, but I stand my ground on this thread. The "distinctives" are not essential to salvation, or to a relation with God.

The "rudiments" however are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I'm not trying to be funny' date=' but would it be unscriptural to baptise someone in a bathtub...if there's enough water to be immersed in? Thanks![/quote']

My oldest son was baptized in a stock tank. nothing unscriptural about it.

C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I was baptized in a lake in Ohio... but it's ok. The water in the lake touched water that touched water in the Jordan' date=' that touched Jesus.[/quote']

Wow - small world! :lol:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
You are twisting my words in to something I never said.




To the first part of your post, I say yes. A person can be right with God and reject certain teachings. Now to clarify what I mean. What you hold to be truth in certain areas may not be the way others see the same verse.

For example. Matthew 16. According to you, and others that is the promise that the Baptist church would be found all through the ages. I however do not beleive that that passage is talking about a local church.

Does that make me wrong or you wrong with God? I trow not. You may be a very spiritual man Jerry, in fact I believe you strive to live an exemplary life, pleasing to the Lord in the best way you know how. I can respect that.

But to insist that I see the local church as you do, as the Bride, and then declare that if I do not see it just like you I am somehow unpleasing to the Lord is the height of absurdity.

That is the difference between the Baptist distinctives and the fundamentals of the faith. They are not one and the same.

Again, you claim that separation of church and state is what is pleasing to the Lord? It is a Biblical doctrine? How do you explain Israel? How can you reconcile that statement and then tell me the KJB is the only Bible that God uses? It was put out by a Church State group. Sort of contradictory ain't it? So I can reject that particular Baptist distinctive and still be right with the Lord. Like it or not.

That's the mess you get into when you try to equate the Baptist denominational distinctives with Biblical doctrine.

As to the second statement, that again is your opinion. Distinctive is not a doctrine. It is what makes a difference between two things. It is what distinguishes Baptist from other Christian groups. But they are based upon convictions more than they are chapter and verse.

Where does the Bible insist that the church must be local and autonomous?

Where does the Bible teach that a state govt. can't be mixed with a group of believers?

Where does the Bible teach that a local must have a deacon?

So not every "distinctive" is an non negotiable biblical doctrine.


Here is what you said.

<>

So I twisted your words. NO, I did not, I just accepted what you said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
I was baptized in my favorite swimming hole down on the creek in the hot summer' date=' August 27, 1961, 46 years ago come August 27, 2007.[/quote']
Was it by and IFB who baptized by and IFB who was baptized by an IFB who was baptized back to Jesus?


P.S. did John believe in the two offices of the church and the two ordinances? :bonk: WAS JESUS REALLY BAPTIZED????


ok... I am done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Matt 3:16 (KJV)

Sure, Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, for after it took place they came up out of the water. So sprinkling and or pouring is not scriptural and should never be accepted.

I rightly don't know what John the Baptist believed about pastors and deacons, for it seems no one seem inspired to write what John believed about it, what is important is what the Bible teaches about it, and it teaches there is just 2 offices. And it would seem, the need of a deacon and or deacons would depend on the size and needs of the local New Testament Church.

And of course in the early church, it had grew quite fast, it had just 120 members prior to Pentecost, Acts 1:15, and it seemed prior to that it had no need of a deacon or deacons, but after Pentecost they gained, Acts 2:41, about three thousand souls, that was when the need arose, so in Acts 6 we have the church selecting the 1st deacons. So it really does not matter what John the Baptist believe about this matter, but what the Bible teaches us.

41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 2:41 (KJV)

15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)

Acts 1:15 (KJV)

So it seems to me, the church will decides on when and how many deacons it has a need for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
P.S. did John believe in the two offices of the church and the two ordinances? :bonk: WAS JESUS REALLY BAPTIZED????


What's your point? That because someone before the church era didn't know NT doctrine that somehow today we don't need to hold it? If so, that would be pretty foolish.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


What's your point? That because someone before the church era didn't know NT doctrine that somehow today we don't need to hold it? If so, that would be pretty foolish.

I notice several thing here Jerry:
First that you sling the word "foolish" around pretty lightly. You may want to do a little Bible study on that.
Second, that when you are not sure what someone say you interject a rather strange accusation/guess instead of asking for simple clarification.

Ever read Jonathon Swifts "A Modest Proposal"? Satire, God uses it in the Bible.

The statement was made on another thread (I think) that "If a SBC member came to our church and wanted to join he would have to be re-baptized we would not accept his SBC baptism."

There is serious error in this line of thinking, or in any "successional" line of thinking.

The requirements of baptism are that someone is a believer, and that it's by immersion... that's it. I mean you can add a whole bunch to it, but it's not biblical.

Acts 8:36-38 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.


God include the above bolded... If you believe... and then WHAT you believe. It didn't say anything about ordinances, church polity or whatever.

If someone is a believer in Christ even if someone who is a total sham of a pastor, a false prophet if you will, baptizes someone by immersion, the baptism is still legitimate.

God is judging the heart of the one being baptized not the baptizer. There is no pedigree for baptismal rights and God is the only judge of the heart.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...