Statement of faith

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by 2serve, Mar 19, 2008.

  1. 2serve

    2serve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    #1 2serve, Mar 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2008
  2. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    No different from most "Statements of Faith" around.

    Their Statement of Faith #1 is too wordy, I think.

    Their Statement of Faith # 2, is wrong. Death was not a threatened penalty for sin. It was a very definitely sure result of sin that since it was spoken by He who cannot lie, then you can take it to the bank.

    God said to Adam "thou shalt surely die".

    Surely is not a threat.
     
  3. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Theological disagreements aside, the statement of faith is too short and not thoruough enough. In my view, the WCF and LBCF represent statements of faith/creeds that are sufficient in their depth and breadth for a statement of faith.
     
  4. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    I think it was intentionally short to allow for interdenominatioal fellowship.
     
  5. ReformedBaptist

    ReformedBaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,894
    Likes Received:
    27
    Well, there you go. Compromise at its finest. lol
     
  6. J.D.

    J.D.
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    3,553
    Likes Received:
    8
    Tis something that a lot of today's fundamentalists are not aware of - the fundamentalist movement originally sought to fence out modernists, but left a wide gate for everyone else. Anyone was welcome as long as they attested to the "five fundamentals". They found out later that the gate was too wide for comfort. Now we have people like Tony Compolo calling themselves [edit: maybe he didn't call himself a fundy, but I know that Dan Rather did back in the 90's] "fundamental" because they attest to the five acid tests. But beyond those five, watch out.

    But apparently Niagara was more concerned with dispensationalism than it was fundamentalism anyway.
     
    #6 J.D., Mar 19, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 19, 2008
  7. Dale-c

    Dale-c
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    4,145
    Likes Received:
    0
    And true interdenominational fellowship doesn't require compromise of beliefs.
    I fellowship with Presbyterians and neither of us have to compromise what we believe for fellowship.
     
  8. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Then you would be a calvinst and Presbyterian and not a Baptist.

    Infiltraitor alert!
     
  9. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Groaner alert !
     
  10. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Silly Sal . There have always been Calvinistic Baptists . Baptists of your theology would have been in the distinct minority in the USA from 1740-1850 for example .
     
  11. 2serve

    2serve
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    0
    There has always been a remnant.
     

Share This Page

Loading...