Author Topic: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement  (Read 1483 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« on: Wed Jun 13, 2012 - 18:56:32 »

larry2

  • Guest
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #1 on: Wed Jun 13, 2012 - 21:29:11 »

What do you Baptists think about this?

http://sbctoday.com/2012/05/30/an-introduction-to-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-god%E2%80%99s-plan-of-salvation%E2%80%9D/



I reckon it would depend if they were Calvinistic in their theology. It is a departure from many of their doctrines on predestination to the best of my knowledge of it.

Offline JohnDB

  • The Force
  • *********
  • Posts: 117605
  • Manna: 192
  • Gender: Male
  • scarey isn't it?
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #2 on: Sun Jun 17, 2012 - 11:29:55 »
On the onset it appears to be of the truth as the "C" in SBC stands for Convention. It has no Heirchy.

But from my many different church visits of SBC churches it is mostly true.

The security of the believer could use some work. It lacks reasonings of sound value. 

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6688
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #3 on: Sun Sep 23, 2012 - 20:17:53 »
I didn't realize baptists were facing such a battle.
What I don't understand is why Calvin gets more credit for monergistic theology than Zwingli.
Secondly, I don't understand why anyone one would give Calvin or Zwingli any credence whatsoever. They were both murderers of those who disagreed with them. Calvin was a theocratic trigger-happy dictator of Geneva Switzerland beginning in 1541. If either the calvinist baptist or armenian baptists were to start shooting dissidents instead of talking on an online forum, you wouldn't give them the time of day. But the genocide murderer Calvin is given respect enough to have a following - today! Calvinists might say, No we just believe his ideas. But you call it Calvinism! Calvinists are ok with identifying with a murderer, BY NAME!, and they accept his egregiously hypocritical ideas on God's love, mercy, and grace.
« Last Edit: Sun Sep 23, 2012 - 20:51:37 by e.r.m. »

Offline Aahil

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 212
  • Manna: 11
  • Gender: Male
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #4 on: Sun Nov 04, 2012 - 14:21:42 »
The SBC skimps on detailing doctrine.  I'd say that statement of Traditional Southern Baptist Soteriology is a bit unbaptist like, even if it does capture prevailing views among Baptists.  The style feels too Catholic. 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #4 on: Sun Nov 04, 2012 - 14:21:42 »



Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6688
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #5 on: Mon Nov 26, 2012 - 14:05:47 »
On the onset it appears to be of the truth as the "C" in SBC stands for Convention. It has no Heirchy.

But from my many different church visits of SBC churches it is mostly true.

The security of the believer could use some work. It lacks reasonings of sound value. 
From my experience the SBC security is vague because getting specific means they have to confront thorny issues.

e.g.  - "I trust entirely in the blood of Jesus for my salvation."
Jesus's blood cleanses us, but are we to trust the blood that was shed or Jesus who shed it?

Semantics? I don't think so. If we trust the one who shed it, then we need to trust the things he said. Blood is inatimate. Trusting in His blood, per say, distances us to an extent from who Jesus - the Son/Lamb of God, Messiah - was and what he taught. It distances us from the responsibility(ies) God gave us.
Luke 14:28, Luke 13:5, Matthew 7:21 can be neglected when we trust the "blood".

All references in the NT about trusting God/Jesus are exhortations to trust Him.
There's not one allusion in the Bible about trusting His "blood".

This is one of several examples of SBC's vagueness when it comes to security.
« Last Edit: Mon Nov 26, 2012 - 14:16:39 by e.r.m. »

Offline Willie T

  • Minds of moderate caliber ordinarily condemn everything which is beyond their range.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2727
  • Manna: 99
  • Gender: Male
  • "Religion is unbelief." Vineyard St.Petersburg, FL
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #6 on: Mon Nov 26, 2012 - 14:37:28 »
On the onset it appears to be of the truth as the "C" in SBC stands for Convention. It has no Heirchy.

But from my many different church visits of SBC churches it is mostly true.

The security of the believer could use some work. It lacks reasonings of sound value. 
From my experience the SBC security is vague because getting specific means they have to confront thorny issues.

e.g.  - "I trust entirely in the blood of Jesus for my salvation."
Jesus's blood cleanses us, but are we to trust the blood that was shed or Jesus who shed it?

Semantics? I don't think so. If we trust the one who shed it, then we need to trust the things he said. Blood is inatimate. Trusting in His blood, per say, distances us to an extent from who Jesus - the Son/Lamb of God, Messiah - was and what he taught. It distances us from the responsibility(ies) God gave us.
Luke 14:28, Luke 13:5, Matthew 7:21 can be neglected when we trust the "blood".

All references in the NT about trusting God/Jesus are exhortations to trust Him.
There's not one allusion in the Bible about trusting His "blood".

This is one of several examples of SBC's vagueness when it comes to security.
I think I kind of get what you are trying to say, but you just might want to also do some research on that word, blood.  The Bible is littered with references to it.

Offline JohnDB

  • The Force
  • *********
  • Posts: 117605
  • Manna: 192
  • Gender: Male
  • scarey isn't it?
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #7 on: Mon Nov 26, 2012 - 15:12:52 »
On the onset it appears to be of the truth as the "C" in SBC stands for Convention. It has no Heirchy.

But from my many different church visits of SBC churches it is mostly true.

The security of the believer could use some work. It lacks reasonings of sound value. 
From my experience the SBC security is vague because getting specific means they have to confront thorny issues.

e.g.  - "I trust entirely in the blood of Jesus for my salvation."
Jesus's blood cleanses us, but are we to trust the blood that was shed or Jesus who shed it?

Semantics? I don't think so. If we trust the one who shed it, then we need to trust the things he said. Blood is inatimate. Trusting in His blood, per say, distances us to an extent from who Jesus - the Son/Lamb of God, Messiah - was and what he taught. It distances us from the responsibility(ies) God gave us.
Luke 14:28, Luke 13:5, Matthew 7:21 can be neglected when we trust the "blood".

All references in the NT about trusting God/Jesus are exhortations to trust Him.
There's not one allusion in the Bible about trusting His "blood".

This is one of several examples of SBC's vagueness when it comes to security.

I think (and could be wrong but prolly not) that when we "trust in the blood of Jesus" we are speaking about the efficacy of that blood. Meaning that we are believing in Jesus' sinless life and that He was the Son of God. That He wasn't the illegitimate son of a woman but instead was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit as foretold in scripture and the Messiah that the scriptures told of. His sacrifice on the cross and shedding of his blood instituted a New Covenant (as the old one was now ended) in which we now can be found blameless before God the Father and have peace with Him instead of enmity. (Blessed are the Peacemakers wasn't referring to peace between men)

And now the fury of Holiness that wants our destruction for being unholy is met equally by the innocence of the blood of Jesus that was spilled on our behalf and we can meet Father God face to face by having faith in Jesus.

Offline e.r.m.

  • Church of Christ
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6688
  • Manna: 73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Traditional Baptist Belief Statement
« Reply #8 on: Tue Nov 27, 2012 - 22:29:19 »
On the onset it appears to be of the truth as the "C" in SBC stands for Convention. It has no Heirchy.

But from my many different church visits of SBC churches it is mostly true.

The security of the believer could use some work. It lacks reasonings of sound value. 
From my experience the SBC security is vague because getting specific means they have to confront thorny issues.

e.g.  - "I trust entirely in the blood of Jesus for my salvation."
Jesus's blood cleanses us, but are we to trust the blood that was shed or Jesus who shed it?

Semantics? I don't think so. If we trust the one who shed it, then we need to trust the things he said. Blood is inatimate. Trusting in His blood, per say, distances us to an extent from who Jesus - the Son/Lamb of God, Messiah - was and what he taught. It distances us from the responsibility(ies) God gave us.
Luke 14:28, Luke 13:5, Matthew 7:21 can be neglected when we trust the "blood".

All references in the NT about trusting God/Jesus are exhortations to trust Him.
There's not one allusion in the Bible about trusting His "blood".

This is one of several examples of SBC's vagueness when it comes to security.

I think (and could be wrong but prolly not) that when we "trust in the blood of Jesus" we are speaking about the efficacy of that blood. Meaning that we are believing in Jesus' sinless life and that He was the Son of God. That He wasn't the illegitimate son of a woman but instead was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit as foretold in scripture and the Messiah that the scriptures told of. His sacrifice on the cross and shedding of his blood instituted a New Covenant (as the old one was now ended) in which we now can be found blameless before God the Father and have peace with Him instead of enmity. (Blessed are the Peacemakers wasn't referring to peace between men)

And now the fury of Holiness that wants our destruction for being unholy is met equally by the innocence of the blood of Jesus that was spilled on our behalf and we can meet Father God face to face by having faith in Jesus.
I agree with you. I understand this is the meaning. But bear with me. Many people DO take this to the next level. It's human nature for some to rely more on the phrase than the meaning behind it. The phrase takes on a life of its own. I have encountered a few who swear by the phrase "literally", and then speak of it as their alma mater. It's to this segment that I address this post. When this happens the doctrine on security is obscured. But I understand what you're saying.
« Last Edit: Tue Nov 27, 2012 - 22:35:45 by e.r.m. »