Scarlett..Thank Christ Jesus he doesn't.
It is probabily a good thing you haven't heard of them. Those who have studied baptist history well them. They are considered among the top baptist theologians. Especially among reformed baptist.
A Baptist Christian a contradiction of terms
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by dadlltj, Jun 19, 2007.
Page 2 of 4
-
I would like to add one more thought to the subject.
God divinely called John "The" Baptist or if you must Baptizer. (there is no need to be funny with the name. In english we call him Baptist.) He was given a divine name and purpose. Throughout 60 to 70 years of early NT history no one ever carried this title, rank or priviledge. No one. No one in scripture is every call "Baptist" or "Baptizer" besides John. No one. It is a mockery of his position, title and rank for people to call themselves "Baptist". They have no right to the name. None. No One is a true "baptist" any more than there is any more true Christs. They do not exist. Many may call themselves such but they are not.
In the scriptures and by scripture alone no one has the right to call themselves baptist.
John is "the" Baptist just as much as Jesus is the "Christ"
ho hè„ to is the definite article attached to John. -
DQuixote..
My sources are from the scriptures. Can you provide any scripture to support call yourself baptist? -
SBCPreacher Active MemberSite Supporter
dadlltj,
I've read most of your posts here. I don't agree with you, but I've read your posts.
Let me ask you, what is the name of the church you attend regularly? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Take a look at your own OP. You don't get that it is offensive to say that a "Baptist Christian is a contradiction in terms"? That comes across as "It is not Christian to be a Baptist." And you unload all of this on a Baptist forum, and expect people not to be offended??
If you are asking me if I agree that it doesn't matter what a local church is named, no I don't agree. A church planter (my ministry) should pray long and seriously about what he names the church. My co-worker named his church Bible Church. I named mine "Baptist." God led in both cases. -
SBCPreacher Active MemberSite Supporter
One more question.
I noticed that you were ordained in a IFB church. Since you no longer like the "title" Baptist, have you renounced your ordaination to and returned the document to the church that ordained you? -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I know of two groups in recent church history who followed your so-called Biblical example of having no names to their church. First of all we have Witness Lee, the errant disciple of Watchman Nee. Lee is the founder of the "Local Church" cult. They call their churches by the name of the city (r. e. "the church at Taipei") rather than giving their churches names. Does this do them any spiritual good? No. They are still a cult.
There is another group known simply as the "nameless movement." I actually went to Japanese language school with two of their female "missionaries." They make the exact same claims as you do about the wrongness of any name but "Christian" and believe it is wrong to name a church, yet they are full of aberrant doctrines.
You, sir, need to concentrate on the wonderful doctrines of the Word of God rather than an incidental fact recorded in the Bible with no commands or principles attached to it. -
SBCPreacher..
-
SBCPreacher..
-
Multiple queries have been about `axe to grind' and the church home of the thread starter.
I would be surprised if "Church of Christ" is not in its name. In my experience, the radical majority of the Churches of Christ is the only group that has ever played a `name game' as a debating strategy. -
John...
The truth hurts and offends.
-
Darron...
-
Acts 11:26 "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (NASB).
The ICB translates "followers" from the same word the NASB translates "disciples."
So, now I repeat: After Acts 11:26, Christians still referred to themselves as "disciples" and "believers" etc.. The name did not make or unmake one into a Christian. What s/he did made a Christian -- did s/he follow Christ. If so, then s/he is a Christian.
For convenience, many followers of Christ who have accepted that group's teachings as the best way per Scripture to follow Christ, continue to refer to themselves as Baptists.
The contradiction you wish for does not exist. Baptists follow Christ, which makes them Christians.
Christ is not divided.Click to expand... -
As for your `heat' in the post between my earlier ones today, I simply answered other people's questions.
I made no accusation to you. -
Darren...
Evidently, you do not know as much about Scripture as you think you do.
Acts 11:26 "and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch" (NASB).
The ICB translates "followers" from the same word the NASB translates "disciples."
So, now I reiterate: "After Acts 11:26, Christians still referred to themselves as "disciples" and "believers" etc.. The name did not make or unmake one into a Christian. What s/he did made a Christian -- did s/he follow Christ. If so, then s/he is a Christian.Click to expand...
Second You must not believe that Peter's use of the term Christian mattered?
I mean he could have said Disciple or Believers and everything would be the same.... would it?
Do you believe Peter's words where his own or where they God's? -
Darren...
Multiple queries have been about `axe to grind' and the church home of the thread starter.Click to expand...
Or did you just reference them and not agree with them? -
The point is very simple: Christians do not have to call themselves only Christians in order to be Christians.
Not calling oneself a Christian -- to the exlusion of anything else -- does not make one a non-Christian.
That is per the examples of Scripture. To claim otherwise is contrary to them. -
dadlltj said:Darren...
Multiple queries have been about `axe to grind' and the church home of the thread starter.Click to expand...
Or did you just reference them and not agree with them?Click to expand...
You could have taken it and the whole post as an answer to multiple queries by others -- and nothing more. This is how you should have, because that is how it was intended. -
John...
Can you show me where there is a building attached to any NT church? No, you can't. If you want to play this game, we would all meet in homes, have no pianos, never try to win children to Christ with Sunday School...the list would go on and on.Click to expand...
I know of two groups in recent church history who followed your so-called Biblical example of having no names to their church. First of all we have Witness Lee, the errant disciple of Watchman Nee. Lee is the founder of the "Local Church" cult. They call their churches by the name of the city (r. e. "the church at Taipei") rather than giving their churches names. Does this do them any spiritual good? No. They are still a cult.Click to expand...
There is another group known simply as the "nameless movement." I actually went to Japanese language school with two of their female "missionaries." They make the exact same claims as you do about the wrongness of any name but "Christian" and believe it is wrong to name a church, yet they are full of aberrant doctrines.Click to expand...
You, sir, need to concentrate on the wonderful doctrines of the Word of God rather than an incidental fact recorded in the Bible with no commands or principles attached to it.Click to expand...
Php 2:9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
Php 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;Click to expand... -
Darren...
The point is very simple: Christians do not have to call themselves only Christians in order to be Christians.
Not calling oneself a Christian -- to the exlusion of anything else -- does not make one a non-Christian.
That is per the examples of Scripture. To claim otherwise is contrary to them.Click to expand...
Baptist is just not another term for disciple or Christian. Are you saying it is?
Page 2 of 4