Featured WE ARE TEACHING WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES-Why I left the Baptist Church

Agreed. But the problem is - if the "Baptist Confession of Faith" is to be thrown under the bus by Baptists (as some do on this board) and even D.L. Moody's views are to tossed under the us and called "A violation of the language rule for Baptist Board" to quote them...

Then what doctrine, what "version" of Baptist teaching can anyone point to as not being "up for sale"??

This guy could have put anything he wanted under the "Baptist roof" - except possibly for "infant baptism".

I agree with you that the easy believism problem does show up in the video.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Have you ever dealt with the PCA?

 

You have mentioned old Baptist Confessions many times in threads. Why is so hard to understand that each Baptist church is autonomous. The local church writes its own bylaws, Constitution and creed or confession, whatever you want to call it. Unlike your "denomination" we think for ourselves.

 

The bylaws,constitution, vs. creeds/confessions are different things.

Many Baptists of a more Reformed nature do not rewrite Confessions of Faith. A number stick with the 1689. And just because they they do does not mean they are mindless. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

I think you got confused with the Bible Versions forum!

You mean the 1644/46 London Confession of Fath. It was unrelated to the Westminster Confession of Faith. The 1689 was based on the WCoF along with Savoy Declaration.

Yes, the NC theology folks generally subscribe to the 1644/46 document.

______________________________________________
BTW, on another matter. Apology accepted.

 

As a Christian who has been a member of baptist church of 16 years but comes from an RM background (Restoration Movement) there are several comments on this thread that bemuse me....

Yes they are no shortage on anti-intellectual CoC'ers out there but equally there are nutty Baptists as well. (eg Westboro).
There are serious biblical shcolars in the RM, Alexander Campbell (for all your dislike of him) was a very good debater. Jack Cottrel is IMHO not far in exegitcal skill from D A Carson, although I have issues with the conclusions of them both they both are extremely logical. Everett Ferguson's "Baptism in the early Church" is a tome that every Baptist should own to ward off those paedo's.

There are sacremental baptists which end up sounding very CoC especially in the British churches, Beasley-Murray is someway along that path and Wheeler-Robinson's "Baptist Principles" sounds like Alexander Campbell helped write it.

In the end there is no Baptist heaven, and no RM heaven, there is only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one hope and one church founded by Jesus to which all who are his belong. It is foolish to think that we might hope for a return to NT doctrine and practices and put aside all divisions and be the one unified group of followers our Lord prayed for but I remain attached to that foolish hope because my Lord in the hour of his suffering asked for it.

 

C.H. Spurgeon revised the Baptist Confession of Faith and it was later adopted as the Philadelphia Confession.

So it is all one thing.

It is all and expansion and format evolution of the same original document - simply being expanded (possibly to map more closely to the Westminster Confession of Faith).

in Christ,

Bob

 

Still NOT inspired scriptures though, NOT to be the source of doctrines and practices though , eh?

 

The Jewish church was divided in Christ's day - not only Sadducee vs Pharisees, but also in the Christian church itself - Acts 15 shows a division arising. (as I am sure you will agree).

The solution was in what we find in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so".

Paul - an outcast from the church hierarchy of his day - the Jewish nation church leadership, himself a Pharisee as he claims, - is to be tested by these non-Christians in Berea sola-scriptura "to see IF" his doctrine "is so".

Only the "few" who choose that route will come to the unity of the faith.

Those who resort to the tired worn practices of dark-ages "name calling" (as some do on this board) as their rule and guide - will never get beyond the fumbling lost-in-dark condition of the Pharisees before them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Interesting point - I never thought of it that.

 

That's a pretty interesting comment, you declared that I was a "name caller" for pointing out religions who have like minded beliefs with debaters here, something you are very fond of doing yourself with the RCC. I have no problem with it and don't consider it name calling, but if you are going to consider it name calling then you might want to not do it yourself. :wavey:

 

Really? You expect me to believe that if I should point out similarities between your views and the Mormon angel Moroni -- that it is viewed as not at all name - calling and ad hominem? Seriously??

This must be some Baptist thing that I was totally unaware of.

Clearly I have been lacking in my efforts to point out your similarities - primarily because I did not think it would be as welcomed as you are claiming.

I must say - this is truly news to me.

:wavey:

 

..............

 

Yes but then you switched in your more recent post to something that even your own Catholic link does not claim. The idea of the saints going back for "more justification" after already being a saved saint - coming to God as the lost to get justification "again" without first falling from Grace and being lost.

you have created your own realm of fiction in that regard.

 

There are only two choices; Either you are justified by grace through faith (Bible), or you are justified after you do all you can do, commandment keeping, works of righteousness, etc, (Moroni)