Are Baptists NAE Evangelical?

No two Baptists anywhere can agree on the Bible.

 

In reality, it's leftover Landmarkist thinking. They don't want to cooperate with churches that aren't of "like faith and order". There's some aspect of politics as well.

But overall, they refuse to work with the NAE for the same reason they reject being part of the Baptist World Alliance.

 

Just as there are bare essentials necessary to recognize professors as true Christians there are bare essentials to recognize true believers as a true church of Christ. Hence, not all professors should be recognized as true Christians unless those essentials are manifest any more than groups of professed Christians should be recognized as true churches of Christ unless those essentials are manifest.

The local church is the only institution Christ designed and instituted for evangelism and it is manifested by certain essentials. Such churches should voluntarily work together in the support of mission work and missionaries who are characterize by those essentials. Those who do not characterize those same essentials should be separated from (2 The. 3:6).

The Great Commission is the mission statement for the churches of Christ and it is the mission with the ultimate design for reproducing churches of like faith and order:

1. Going with The right gospel as all who preach "another gospel" should be regarded accursed (Gal. 1:8-9) rather than joined.

2. Administering the same kind of baptism as there is but one age long commissioned baptism (Mt. 28:19 with Ephes. 4:5).

3. assembling baptized believers together in church capacity for the intent to teach them how to observe all things commanded by Christ (Mt. 28:20 with Acts 2:41-42).

The right gospel eliminates fellowship with many professed churches of Christ. New testament baptism eliminates any kind of practical church fellowship with many professed churches of Christ. Where there is no scriptural baptism there can be no scriptural church of Christ as there is no such thing in the New Testament as churches composed of unbaptized members. Scriptural baptism qualifies what kind of membership composes a church and scriptural churches are not composed of unrepentant unbelievers or people who are seeking salvation through ordinances and church membership. Hence, the very nature of the ordinance speak directly to the issue of evangelism and what kind of evanglism is in view.

 

Dr. Walter, are you saying that those not baptized as adults by immersion cannot be evangelical? Can they be Christians at all?

Just trying to completely understand.

 

I am saying that infants are still unregenerate, unrepentant, unbelievers and that a little water on them does not change their nature. That makes them unfit for church membership and obviously in that state they cannot be evangelistic any more than any other lost unregenerate can be evangelistic. In addition as adults who may have been "confirmed" they are still unfit for evangelism because they see evangelism beginning with infant baptism and baptism instead of with repentance and faith in the gospel.


So-called churches that are composed of this kind of membership are not true churches of Jesus Christ. They preach "another gospel" and incoporate lost unregenerate, unrepentant unbelievers into their membership.

 

GE:
See what I meant with the evils of water-baptism?

No; I rather shall keep away from such conversations. They are for no good at all, ever!

 

I think "another gospel" is way too strong. There are many, many paedo-baptists who believe in the need for regeneration and a relationship with Christ as we do.

 

Saying that many peedo-baptists believe in the need of regeneration is one thing but saying that need is fulfilled in baptism is saying quite another thing. Saying that they believe in the need of relationship with Christ is one thing, but saying that relationship occurs in baptism is saying quite another thing.

Paul makes it clear that the power of God for salvation is not found in baptism but by faith in the gospel (1 Cor. 1:17-18). Abraham was justified by faith and procurred a relationship with God BEFORE and thus WITHOUT submission to external divine rites (circumcision) (Rom. 4:11) and he is presented as the "Father" or ROLE MODEL for ALL who believe the gospel.

What Paul regarded as "another gospel" is any salvation teaching that added anything to the finished works of Jesus Christ to the gospel for justification. Pedo-baptists demand that baptism and works are inclusive for justification before God and thus fall squarely under being "accursed" by Paul.

There are not three or four options. You either preach/teach and believe the true gospel or you do not - there is no middle ground. You are attempting to create a middle ground for pedobaptists and there is no such middle ground.