Author Topic: Baptist Doctrine. (Read 7792 times)

chrisovery · « **on:** Fri Jul 15, 2011 - 10:38:07 »

How can we take one verse out of the bible and make a whole doctrin with it. This is exactly what the baptist denomination has done. They have taken 1 Corinthians 3:8 to claim that there are no more spiritual gifts.Yet as we read on in the book we see that Paul goes on state that we should pray and seek after spiritual gifts. This teaching from the baptist is like most of the other teaching of the baptist. They are false and give honor and power tao man not Christ.

How in the world do we get that god has changed all from one verse. the baptists are very good at it.

P.F. · « **Reply #1 on:** Fri Jul 15, 2011 - 10:41:06 »

They certainly can be insidious with how they treat the Holy Writ.

chrisovery · « **Reply #2 on:** Fri Jul 15, 2011 - 10:44:30 »

amen to that.

p.rehbein · « **Reply #3 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 06:49:29 »

can anyone provide a complete list of the gifts of the Spirit?

LaSpino3 · « **Reply #4 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:38:32 »

Chrisovery, concerning 1 Cor.3:8, can you give me a brief overview of the Baptist teaching in their own words on this verse. I am not familiar with it.

Phil LaSpino

JohnDB · « **Reply #5 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:49:07 »

Ummm. Hate to disagree w ya. But that isn't the whole pail of Baptist (Southern Baptist) orthodoxy.

There are hundreds of varieties of Baptists. Which one are you speaking of.
If SBC, then no one person speaks for the whole.

p.rehbein · « **Reply #6 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:53:12 »

teaching from the baptist is like most of the other teaching of the baptist. They are false and give honor and power tao man not Christ.
--------------------

this is the sentence that troubles me. Not being a Baptist, can't speak for their beliefs but this broad brush condemnaiton is troubling for me......sigh.......

(just a wee bit of hate-speech here?)

Joel, the Son of Pethuel · « **Reply #7 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 10:16:32 »

Baptists are not monolithic. Many don't believe in the continuation of the spiritual gifts, but many do. I have known plenty of Baptists on both sides of that issue.

p.rehbein · « **Reply #8 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 10:30:22 »

If some don't believe and some do believe, then are they still monolithic? What Baptist are we speaking of? Southern? Missionary? Primitive, Old Path, Other?

As for the first sentance in the OP, I can certainly see a reason to take ONE scripture and make a whole doctrine with it.

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotton Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

That ONE scripture makes a pretty good doctrine in my opinion.

Joel, the Son of Pethuel · « **Reply #9 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:17:47 »

Quote from: Joel, the Son of Pethuel on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 10:16:32

Baptists are not monolithic.

chrisovery · « **Reply #10 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:18:24 »

Quote from: LaSpino3 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:38:32

Chrisovery, concerning 1 Cor.3:8, can you give me a brief overview of the Baptist teaching in their own words on this verse. I am not familiar with it.

Phil LaSpino

that was actually a mistake it is actually 1 cor. 13:8 not 3: 8. i appoligize for the confusion there in that typo.

chrisovery · « **Reply #11 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:20:08 »

Quote from: JohnDB on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:49:07

Ummm. Hate to disagree w ya. But that isn't the whole pail of Baptist (Southern Baptist) orthodoxy.

There are hundreds of varieties of Baptists. Which one are you speaking of.
If SBC, then no one person speaks for the whole.

have you ever discussed such things with your leaders to find out where they stand. i have talked about this with many baptists not just a few from one church or school. but many all over the nation.

chrisovery · « **Reply #12 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:23:52 »

Quote from: p.rehbein on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:53:12

teaching from the baptist is like most of the other teaching of the baptist. They are false and give honor and power tao man not Christ.
--------------------

this is the sentence that troubles me. Not being a Baptist, can't speak for their beliefs but this broad brush condemnaiton is troubling for me......sigh.......

(just a wee bit of hate-speech here?)

yes there is an individual relationship with christ. this is where the biggest problem is in the denoms. they have learned a mans version of the gospel. therefore putting their faith more in mankind than a living god.

p.rehbein · « **Reply #13 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:26:36 »

Quote from: Joel, the Son of Pethuel on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:17:47

Quote from: Joel, the Son of Pethuel on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 10:16:32
Baptists are not monolithic.

uh, hmmmmm, geee, hehe.............

misread that one..........sigh........

p.rehbein · « **Reply #14 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:31:54 »

Quote from: chrisovery on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 11:23:52

Quote from: p.rehbein on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:53:12
teaching from the baptist is like most of the other teaching of the baptist. They are false and give honor and power tao man not Christ.
--------------------

this is the sentence that troubles me. Not being a Baptist, can't speak for their beliefs but this broad brush condemnaiton is troubling for me......sigh.......

(just a wee bit of hate-speech here?)

yes there is an individual relationship with christ. this is where the biggest problem is in the denoms. they have learned a mans version of the gospel. therefore putting their faith more in mankind than a living god.

I know Baptists who believe in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Baptists who believe in the gifts of the Spirit. Baptists who believe pretty much just as my Church does. I do part from their teachings concerning women, once saved always saved, works and such, but, even then ALL Baptists do not believe/teach the same way on these. For instance there is a fairly good Baptist preacher in Northwest Alabama who differes from the "traditional" teachings of the Southern Baptists and does not apologize for it. I believe his name is Jeff Noblit of Grace Life Church of the Shoals (but don't quote me on that).

Just saying, when we broad brush folks, we can make a huge mistake in our critique of their theological ideology.

LaSpino3 · « **Reply #15 on:** Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 18:10:41 »

Chrisovery, I read 1 Cor.13:8, and the rest of the context, ver.9-10. Can you explain to me what is it in the Baptist own words that you disagree with.

The word fail in this verse means, to abolished, to render inactive, idle, useless, to vanish.

By implying to cause to cease, to do away, to put an end to, 1 Cor.6:13, "God shall destroy." 1 Cor.13:11, "I put away childish things." Rom.6:6, "That the body of sin might be destroyed." 1 Cor.15:24, "When He shall have put down all rule," with ver.26, "be destroyed in death." 2 Thes.2:8, "Shall destroy." 2 Tim.1:10, Heb.2:14. Pass. To cease, to done away, 1 Cor.2:6, "Come to nought, 1 Cor.13:8, "They shall fail." Ver.10, "It shall vanish," "Shall be done away." 2 Cor.3:7-11-13-14, Gal.5:11. To cease from, as to cease being under or connected with any person or thing. So as to be freed from a law, Rom.7:2-6, "We are delivered from the law," with ver.3, "Free from that law." Also, Gal.5:4, "Christ is become of no effect," or ye have withdrawn, apostatized, from Christ.

So whats the problem?

Phil LaSpino

chrisovery · « **Reply #16 on:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 - 09:02:23 »

Quote from: LaSpino3 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 18:10:41

Chrisovery, I read 1 Cor.13:8, and the rest of the context, ver.9-10. Can you explain to me what is it in the Baptist own words that you disagree with.

The word fail in this verse means, to abolished, to render inactive, idle, useless, to vanish.

By implying to cause to cease, to do away, to put an end to, 1 Cor.6:13, "God shall destroy." 1 Cor.13:11, "I put away childish things." Rom.6:6, "That the body of sin might be destroyed." 1 Cor.15:24, "When He shall have put down all rule," with ver.26, "be destroyed in death." 2 Thes.2:8, "Shall destroy." 2 Tim.1:10, Heb.2:14. Pass. To cease, to done away, 1 Cor.2:6, "Come to nought, 1 Cor.13:8, "They shall fail." Ver.10, "It shall vanish," "Shall be done away." 2 Cor.3:7-11-13-14, Gal.5:11. To cease from, as to cease being under or connected with any person or thing. So as to be freed from a law, Rom.7:2-6, "We are delivered from the law," with ver.3, "Free from that law." Also, Gal.5:4, "Christ is become of no effect," or ye have withdrawn, apostatized, from Christ.

So whats the problem?

Phil LaSpino

they claim that there are no longer any gifts of the spirit. yet paul goes on to write that we should seek spiritual gifts in the same letter. they also claim that there are no longer apostles. this has been derived by one vese and the only verse in the bible that states anything like it. that is what makes it dangerous. they take power away from god and put on themselves.

MrsC · « **Reply #17 on:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 - 11:53:43 »

Quote from: p.rehbein on Sat Jul 16, 2011 - 07:53:12

Just saying, when we broad brush folks, we can make a huge mistake in our critique of their theological ideology.

P.F. · « **Reply #18 on:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 - 13:33:19 »

The baptists are insidious. They are the soulless minions of orthodoxy.

chrisovery · « **Reply #19 on:** Mon Jul 18, 2011 - 14:51:58 »

Quote from: P.F. on Mon Jul 18, 2011 - 13:33:19

The baptists are insidious. They are the soulless minions of orthodoxy.

well i have to agree with you. i know many that go to baptist churches but they do not claim to be baptist. they do claim to be a part of the body of christ. there is a difference. we were not bought by the denomination names.

BigBuckey · « **Reply #20 on:** Tue May 01, 2012 - 09:02:18 »

John MacArthur is not representative of all modern Baptists, but this is a great article for all to consider: http://www.gracechurch.org/distinctives/tongues/.

Sola Fide,
BigBuckey

JohnDB · « **Reply #21 on:** Tue May 01, 2012 - 19:52:51 »

SBC Baptists by definition are not definable. Especially by Calvinistic doctrines. (Although a very vocal minority would like for everyone to believe otherwise)

I, Myself, barely fit on the rim of the pail of orthodoxy for Southern Baptist Convention Baptists.

SBC is exhorbitantly a large convention. They most certainly have the largest missions organization of any denomination out there by both numbers and dollars.

They also publish most of the literature out there used by small group bible studies.

It is supposed to be generic & not siding with any particular theology. (Which lately means that it is a bit sophomoric and leans heavily on morality lessons)

BigBuckey · « **Reply #22 on:** Wed May 02, 2012 - 14:55:46 »

Quote from: JohnDB on Tue May 01, 2012 - 19:52:51

SBC Baptists by definition are not definable. Especially by Calvinistic doctrines. (Although a very vocal minority would like for everyone to believe otherwise)

I, Myself, barely fit on the rim of the pail of orthodoxy for Southern Baptist Convention Baptists.

SBC is exhorbitantly a large convention. They most certainly have the largest missions organization of any denomination out there by both numbers and dollars.

They also publish most of the literature out there used by small group bible studies.

It is supposed to be generic & not siding with any particular theology. (Which lately means that it is a bit sophomoric and leans heavily on morality lessons)

It is interesting that the SBC / major majority of the Baptist world has come to this place, considering that it developed from a clearly Calvinistic denomination (see the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith). Within the 1689, we find basically a copy of the Westminster Confession of Faith with the exception of congregationalism and credo-baptism.

Moreover, the Baptists believed in a regenerate church and therefore to be a church member, one must subscribe to the entire confession of faith. The problem is that you have folks who don't really care about deep theology or who may not be Calvinists, etc., and therefore over the years the Confession has been dumbed down to fit the least common denominator (compare to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, which is still the confessional document for membership in a Southern Baptist church).

JohnDB · « **Reply #23 on:** Wed May 02, 2012 - 15:15:36 »

Sorry but that history you are quoting is ratherv skewed & from the calvinists.

Core SBC are not calvinists nor armenian in beliefs.

There is a third rail of beliefs that is inclusive of the parable of soils while preserving OSAS (after a fasion).

Calvinistic sections of the SBC certainly have been used as workhorses but are not the ones in the driver's seat.

Every Calvinist Preacher who tries for executive leadership in the Boards of the SBC keep coming away telling stories of "good ol boy network" and etc but the truth is that the Baptists are former calvinists who left them. (They at one time were the "best game in town" but formed their own denom.

BigBuckey · « **Reply #24 on:** Wed May 02, 2012 - 16:39:49 »

Quote from: JohnDB on Wed May 02, 2012 - 15:15:36

Sorry but that history you are quoting is ratherv skewed & from the calvinists.

Core SBC are not calvinists nor armenian in beliefs.

There is a third rail of beliefs that is inclusive of the parable of soils while preserving OSAS (after a fasion).

Calvinistic sections of the SBC certainly have been used as workhorses but are not the ones in the driver's seat.

Every Calvinist Preacher who tries for executive leadership in the Boards of the SBC keep coming away telling stories of "good ol boy network" and etc but the truth is that the Baptists are former calvinists who left them. (They at one time were the "best game in town" but formed their own denom.

Baptists came from England in the Seventeenth century, and they were Calvinists. That's a historical fact. Their first doctrinal statement was finished in 1644 and was rather vague. After the Westminster Assembly, Baptists borrowed language from the Westminster Confession of Faith and re-worded a few things, producing a finished statement of doctrine in 1689.

Compare the length and depth of the 1689 with subsequent revisions of Baptist doctrine: 1742 Philadelphia Confession, 1833 New Hampshire Confession, and the various releases of the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, 1998, and 2000). The 1689 was a self-destructing document. By Baptist churches 1) being essentially independent churches, 2) giving the authority to the congregation over decisions of doctrine and practice, and 3) requiring that the congregation affirm all points of the doctrinal statement, it was just a matter of time before the 1689 was re-written to remove some of the less-favorable doctrines.

Now, one more point - the flagship seminary of the SBC, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a large constituent of Calvinists and has been cranking out Calvinistic Baptist students like crazy. I realize the general attitude toward Calvinism in the SBC is one of disapproval, but what is the SBC going to look like in 50 years?

BigBuckey · « **Reply #25 on:** Wed May 02, 2012 - 16:44:26 »

Quote from: JohnDB on Wed May 02, 2012 - 15:15:36

Core SBC are not calvinists nor armenian in beliefs.

The two are mutually exclusive and one is either a Calvinist or an Arminian, because they contradict each other regarding the nature of man. The law of non-contradiction necessitates that one cannot be both. Yet, if one is a Christian, they are in one camp or the other whether they realize it or not.

You may be stating that the current SBC doctrinal statement, the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, is not explicitly Calvinist or Arminian, and if that is what you're saying you are correct.

JohnDB · « **Reply #26 on:** Wed May 02, 2012 - 20:29:31 »

Aha.

You must be one of the two or nuts is a common reply from calvinists.

I'm not and have not been Calvinist. Nor have I been Arminian in my beliefs. There is a third choice that no Calvinist can see (by personal choice). It exists & that has been SBC core beliefs since the Sixties (at least but according to my Grandfather even longer)

The position is undefinable but by the one scripture that explains it the best. "The Man Born Blind" story in John's Gospel is an accurate explanation of taking neither side in a debate extremely similar to the Calvinism/Armenian debate. (It isn't a little story with no new information)

But by definition the second you can claim a theology system you are no longer SBC Baptist Core and have become a Fringe Group wanting control of a CONVENTION. Which is like herding cats. (Something else that is impossible)

makahiya · « **Reply #27 on:** Thu May 03, 2012 - 19:47:58 »

The truest scientific explanation of Sola Scriptura Theology is the Record Theory.
The Record Theory independently answers the questions of final canonization (books and words) and final authority.

The Record Theory demonstrates that the Holy Bibles in heaven are identical to the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bibles on earth. The human finger prints (typographical errors, spelling errors, missing words, etc.) document the divine testaments and covenants between God and man. The dynamic evidence of the Purified Text Theory support the Record Theory.

The evidence is exhaustive, categorical and conclusively demonstrated in the manuscript evidence, billions of KJV Holy Bibles, bible canonization, bible doctrine, computational linguistics and the testimonies of millions of Bible martyrs.

KJV Psalms 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words:
as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

1. O.T. Hebrew Original Autographs 1500 B.C. - 389 B.C., 39 Books
2. O.T. Aramaic Original Autographs 607 B.C., Daniel 2:4 - 7:28
3. N.T. Koine Greek Original Autographs 40 A.D. - 90 A.D., 27 Books
4. Old Syrian Texts 100 A.D. - 200 A.D., 66 Books
5. Old Latin Texts 100 A.D. - 200 A.D., 66 Books
6. Reformation German Texts 1500 A.D. - 1560 A.D., 66 Books
7. Reformation English Texts 1382 A.D. - 1611 A.D., 66 Books
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HRoberson · « **Reply #28 on:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 - 18:59:53 »

Quote from: makahiya on Thu May 03, 2012 - 19:47:58

The Record Theory demonstrates that the Holy Bibles in heaven are identical to the AV 1611 KJV Holy Bibles on earth.

There are Bibles in Heaven? And they're written in 1611 English?

Odd. Very odd.

Christian Forums News:

Author Topic: Baptist Doctrine. (Read 7792 times)

p.rehbein

p.rehbein

p.rehbein

p.rehbein

p.rehbein

HRoberson