Baptist a Denomination so say the Cals and Arms

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by revmwc, Feb 28, 2012.

  1. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    To believe the doctrine of Calvin or Arminius one must fully believe that the Baptist are a denomination and a protestant one. Calvin came out of Roman Catholicism and into the Dutch Reformed Church; Jacobus Arminius also came from the Dutch Reformed movement. Both came from reformation churches and denominations.
    Thus to follow their teachings would place the Baptist as a Denomination and a Protestant Church. The general Baptist did come from the teachings of John Smith (1570 – c. August 28, 1612).and Thomas Helwys (1575 – c.1616) Helwys writing the first Baptist articles of Faith

    http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/edoc.htm .

    John Smythe in his confession for Baptist countered the Calvinism being taught in that day. Both men held in a doctrine of general atonement that Christ died for all people. Helwys however did teach a falling away from grace.

    Most Baptist however will rally in defense and say we are not a Denomination and we didn’t come out of the reformation. So why would a true Baptist want to settle for reformation doctrine. There were a number of Baptistic groups from the beginning of the church.

    The word of God says the first believers were known as those of the way, not The Way International as they are a cult but the Way. Then in Antioch Syria they were known as Christians. From there several groups existed, best known are the Donatist, Paulicians, Albigenses and Waldenses.
    All these believed that pedo-baptism was not scriptural; all believed that the Lords supper was to be a memorial, all believed the church was autonomous and they believed in Salvation by Grace through faith, they had some doctrinal issues grant it almost all do. All we have of most is the record of their enemies in the Catholic Church in their accusations against them. They labeled them as heretics and most being burned at the stake or hanged as far back as the 2nd century. But the basics of the New Testament church were adhered to.
    As to what we know they didn’t teach that atonement was limited nor that one could lose their salvation. At the beginning of the 11th Century that would begin in 1000 A.D. many in the baptistict groups felt Christ was returning and sold or gave their possessions to the poor and went into the hills to a wait Christ return. They were pre-trib, pre-mil. So again why do Baptist want to accept a reformation doctrine that was not taught previously and that came from a protestant church? By Dutch Reformers who were at odds with each other. It just doesn’t make sense to me.
     
  2. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nice try, but you are late to the party.

    NOT ONE of the groups you listed has a common source nor common doctrines and most have at least one doctrine that is heretical.

    Why Baptists insist on holding to these myths is beyond me, but whatever floats your boat, I guess.
     
  3. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    I said they held some doctrines we wouldn't agree but the basics of church autonomy, non pedo-baptism, salvation by grace through and a that the Lord's Supper was not a Transubstaitiation of the Body and Blood of Christ they held.
    Strange how you centered on the 4 groups I listed that were baptistic in belief and failed to take on the major part of the writing.

    As for Smythe and Helwys they are considered the Baptist of the reformation. So again the two from Helwys and Smythe although he turned in doctrine are linked to Baptist today.

    Calvin and Arminius were reformers.
     
  4. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know all that and more. You fail to make much of a point.

    We have a known history with a known starting point and it does not stem from all the heretical splinter groups that disavowed catholicism. biggest reason that some seem to think so is their utter contempt for all things Catholic, even when our histories intertwine and never mind the fact that we would not even be here as Baptists if not for Catholics who came first.
     
  5. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    Really the Catholics came first? So the church at Jerusalem and Antioch and Smyrna and Ephsus and Thyatira and Corinth and Philidelphia and Laodecia and the others were all Catholic in orgin since you say the Catholics came first. Well Christ being the head of the church would be my belief as to why we are all here. Agian you fail to answer the point of whether you believe the Baptist are a denomination or Protestant church. But I can see you believe they came from Calvin so nough said.
     
  6. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Way to misunderstand...

    Are you actually familiar with church history or is this going to be another of those sort of threads?
     
  7. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    -so we can't agree with anything they taught? I fail to see the point of this paragraph. It's just a history lesson.

    -I have no facts to back this up, only personal experience, but I would say that more baptists than not DO believe that we are protestant and came out of the recognition. Nearly all of them look back with gratitude to the work, faith, and boldness of Martin luther, which shaped the Non-catholic world of the church, including Baptists.
    -The "landmarkists" have always been a minority view in circles I have been familiar with. Perhaps I am just in non-landmarkist circles.

    Not sure what doctrine you are referring to here, but if some baptist discover some point of doctrine that they think the reformers got right, why not believe it? ...not cuz the reformers said so, but because they believe it is what scripture teaches.

    Besides, the non-landmarkists view does not deny that there were true believers thoughout history... or that for the first few hundred years the true believers made up the majority of the Christian church...We simply will say that the reformers brought back some vital teachings that the early church taught, that the Catholic church had, for the most part, abandoned.

    To say that Baptist faith does not line up 95% with what the reformers were teaching (regardless of one's stance on cal/Arm) simply doesn't fit. Most Baptist statements of faith would line up very well with the older England Baptist confessions, which came out of the Older reformed confessions...except that most modern ones will not be calvinistic in soteriology.

    Regarding Pre-trib, pre-mil...you can find differing eschatological view among christians for most of church history...so history is not the way we are going to solve that one.
     
  8. 12strings

    12strings
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    regarding whether it is a denomination or not... that depends on your definition of denominaton...Some would say all baptists are a denominaton...some would say SBC is one denomination, and GARBC is another, American Baptists another...
     
  9. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    You mean the part of History where Constaintine Emporor of Rome eddicted the end of Roman persecution of Christians and established the Roman Catholic Church as a part of the Government of Rome? Or the part of church history where the Church of Antioch Syria sent Paul and companions out on missionary journey's which by the way was not the Catholic church. What about the church at Jerusalem which grew by 3000 on the day of Pentacost due to Peter's preaching which again was not the Roman Catholic Church.
    Scripture shows a church of believers who believed that Jesus died and Rose again that followed Paul's teaching that we are saved by Grace and not of works. That the Head of the church is Jesus Christ and He is still the head of that church. Peter and the apostles were the key messengers who went into the world spreading the Gospel and who were martyred for their faith all exceept the Apostle John who died a natural death.
    Christ built his church upon the Faith that Peter proclaimed and the faith that we all have. Not sure what history you of speaking of for the church but the bible never shows the Catholics as the first church as you stated.
     
  10. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay... Ignorance accepted.

    Of course the Bible doesn't speak about the catholic (small "c" intentional) church. It predates it (in opposition to Roman Catholic doctrine and revisionist history). That would be normally expected for a series of books and letters written AS A PART OF THE FORMATION AND EXPANSION of the church (singular). It does, however, talk about THE CHURCH. One church in multiple congregations, located throughout the Middle East and beyond (even into Europe).

    The Bible does not speak to the papacy for that did not exist during the time of the writing. It was invented later.

    The Bible does not say that the church was founded on Peter either. It was founded on CHRIST. Peter was merely the human agent who spoke the truth about Christ. (Do a study on petros and petra for clarification.)

    And, finally, there WAS a history between the time of the writing of Scripture and the time of Constantine and the later happenings once Christianity was made the religion of the realm. That history is both catholic (small "c" again) and OURS. Just as we know that Adam and Noah are utterly required to be in our historical line -- for all people stemmed from them -- so too is the catholic history OURS for all Christianity stemmed from that beginning. We must take into account the post-apostolic leaders who literally invented the church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit as they expanded the kingdom of God throughout the world, including translation efforts in as many as 500 languages, the formation of church polity in forms that have now matured into basically three, episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational (and we might include a fourth, a general lack of polity at all), and in the solidification of doctrines critical to the formation and understanding of the Bible, God, and Christ (church, salvation, eschatology, etc.), all of which happend post-Bible.
     
  11. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    There IS a "catholic" church, in the Universal since, that is comprised of all believers in heaven/earth, and who are members of the real "Body of Christ"

    Also, early church had bishops/elders/pastors in the biblical sense, NOT vested with measnings that Rome gave them!

    Rome/RCC as we know it really started after the church merged with Roman Empire!

    NOT the RCC!
     
    #11 DaChaser1, Feb 29, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 29, 2012
  12. revmwc

    revmwc
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    4,037
    Likes Received:
    69
    Yes but he stated "...even when our histories intertwine and never mind the fact that we would not even be here as Baptists if not for Catholics who came first."

    My point is the Baptist or a New Testament church made up like the early church with bishops/elders/pastors in the biblical sense as you say would exist. Not as denominational heirarchy as the RCC does but with Christ as head. The early churches as shown in Revelation and Acts were not and never have been a part of the Recognized Catholics the RCC of the reformation and today. So that the RCC Catholics did not come first. Protestant churches were part of the RCC and the Baptist who are patterned after the early N.T. is neither protestant nor denominational but has Christ as it's head.

    As to what is denominationalism - "the tendency, in Protestantism, to separate into religious denominations or to advocate such separations"

    Baptist see that the church the local N.T. church has Christ as it's head and follow the tenats as laid out in the N.T. for that church. Not a seperation from like minded belivers nor following as set of denominational rules or doctrines.
     
  13. Ed B

    Ed B
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    0

    So when should we set up the arm-wrestling match with the CoC and other restoration movement churches who claim they are not denominations or protestant over the right to claim the Waldensians, Donatist, etc as our own?
     

Share This Page

Loading...