Southern Baptists and saved/born again...

[justnobody]

I don’t think you could be more wrong. Each church was not independent nor democratic. Please cite examples. They were under the authority of the Apostles, bishops, priests and deacons. Multiple examples of ordaining priests and bishops in the NT. And most of Pauls letters were written on his authority as bishop and Apostle. He was writing to correct and order them to change their behavior.

the position of priest died when Jesus Christ died because Jesus Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. The book of Acts is a perfect picture of an independent Baptist church

Justnobody

 

[Michael1978]

Dear justnobody,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. As a former lifelong Southern Baptist I encourage you to read the early church fathers, particularly St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. Both were Catholic Bishops and were disciples of the apostle St. John. Neither the Bible nor Christian history supports the Southern Baptist view. You can’t say that Acts describes a baptist church when baptist churches didn’t exist until the 1600’s. You can’t say the priesthood died with Jesus when he in fact gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and gave apostolic authority to his disciples shortly before he died—the authority to bind and loose; the authority to forgive sins; the command to go forth and baptize. It’s tough facing facts that are counter to one’s beliefs. I know; been there done that. But as the bible tells us, the truth shall make you free!

 

[Jim_Dandy]

:clapping:

And please allow me to add…from Numbers 27:

18So the Lord said to Moses, “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit,a and lay your hand on him. 19Have him stand before Eleazar the priest and the entire assembly and commission him in their presence. 20Give him some of your authority so the whole Israelite community will obey him. 21He is to stand before Eleazar the priest, who will obtain decisions for him by inquiring of the Urim before the Lord. At his command he and the entire community of the Israelites will go out, and at his command they will come in.”

22Moses did as the Lord commanded him. He took Joshua and had him stand before Eleazar the priest and the whole assembly. 23Then he laid his hands on him and commissioned him, as the Lord instructed through Moses.

:clapping:

 

[justnobody]

Dear justnobody,

You’re entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. As a former lifelong Southern Baptist I encourage you to read the early church fathers, particularly St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp of Smyrna. Both were Catholic Bishops and were disciples of the apostle St. John. Neither the Bible nor Christian history supports the Southern Baptist view. You can’t say that Acts describes a baptist church when baptist churches didn’t exist until the 1600’s. You can’t say the priesthood died with Jesus when he in fact gave Peter the keys to the kingdom and gave apostolic authority to his disciples shortly before he died—the authority to bind and loose; the authority to forgive sins; the command to go forth and baptize. It’s tough facing facts that are counter to one’s beliefs. I know; been there done that. But as the bible tells us, the truth shall make you free!

disagree; as a Catholic for the first forty year of my life and Baptist for the last thirty five and reading loads of religious material along with a careful study of te Book of Acts it became quite clear the the early church was as the Baptist is today.

justnobody

 

[PiousTemplar]

disagree; as a Catholic for the first forty year of my life and Baptist for the last thirty five and reading loads of religious material along with a careful study of te Book of Acts it became quite clear the the early church was as the Baptist is today.

justnobody

I think you are very, very wrong here.

 

[Rag_Hanger]

I think you are very, very wrong here.

I think he is, too, but even the most militant Catholic can’t deny that each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.

 

[SteveGC]

I think he is, too, but even the most militant Catholic can’t deny that each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.

I’m not the most militant Catholic, but I would very quickly deny at least 3 of the distinctives, namely biblical authority, autonomy of the local church, and two ordinances. These are decidedly not found to be taught and practiced anywhere in scripture.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think he is, too, but even the most militant Catholic can’t deny that each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.

Rag Hanger,

Quote of an earlier post regarding our thread topic: “Southern Baptists and saved/born again…”

jason3477,

I’m a former Southern Baptist.

Southern Baptists believe salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification, and none of these are related to Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. See The Baptist Faith and Message, IV. Salvation, Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i

Regeneration is defined as “new birth” and “a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.” It involves “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” For the Southern Baptist, “repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.”

How to Become A Christian (link: sbc.net/knowjesus/theplan.asp): They suggest this prayer: “Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to make me a new creation and to prepare me to dwell in your presence forever. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life.”

The SBC believes Baptism is a church ordinance, not a Sacrament. Southern Baptists do not believe any Graces are imparted in Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. In fact, Baptism performed as a Sacrament is not recognized as valid, even if Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So, if you were Baptized by a Church that believes Baptism is a Sacrament and Graces are imparted, such as the forgiveness of sin----- or lacks belief in the “security of the believer”; you must be Baptized again in the Southern Baptist Church.

There is an interesting “position” paper on the Southern Baptist Convention website, though it has not yet been adopted by the board of trustees. Final editing is to be made by the chairman of the board.

Southern Baptist Convention Link: imb.org/main/news/details.asp?LanguageID=1709&StoryID=3840

**Position Paper Concerning the IMB Guideline on Baptism
a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

"Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches."**

Ironically, Southern Baptists look to Scripture for their beliefs. Yet, Holy Scripture clearly connects the forgiveness of sins with Baptism ( Acts 2:38). Baptism is the “circumcision made without hands”; being buried with Christ in Baptism, and raised with Him through faith, is connected with the powerful working of God. (Colossians 2:11-15) Just as circumcision brought the Jews into the Old Covenant, Baptism brings us into the New Covenant.

Peace,
Anna

You claim that “each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.”

Please provide support for the Baptist “born-again” distinctives–from Acts and other places— to support exclusion of the Sacramental nature of Baptism, to support the exclusion of infant Baptism; and to support the necessity that one must embrace the “doctrine of the security of the believer” as a condition of Baptism.

Peace,
Anna

 

[EzraJacob]

the position of priest died when Jesus Christ died because Jesus Christ was the last sacrifice for sin. The book of Acts is a perfect picture of an independent Baptist church

Justnobody

The book of Acts also show Churchs, united as one. There is no unity in Baptist.

 

[Rag_Hanger]

I’m not the most militant Catholic, but I would very quickly deny at least 3 of the distinctives, namely biblical authority, autonomy of the local church, and two ordinances. These are decidedly not found to be taught and practiced anywhere in scripture.

So if a Protestant says that the sky is blue, obviously, Catholics would be bound to say that it’s purple.

 

[pablope]

I think he is, too, but even the most militant Catholic can’t deny that each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.

HI, Rag…could you then provide some examples of these Distinctives and show their Biblical support or how these were practiced in Acts and other places?

 

[Rag_Hanger]

HI, Rag…could you then provide some examples of these Distinctives and show their Biblical support or how these were practiced in Acts and other places?

There are many fine resources on the internet that you will find if you google “Baptist Distinctives”.
Jim Dandy:

Militant Catholic?

Each of the Baptist Distinctives is not taught and practiced in Acts and other places. The first Baptists (who originated from the 16th century Anabaptists/Mennonites) date from c. 1607, founded by English Separatist John Smyth in Amsterdam.

Actually, Anabaptist groups, from which Baptists are descended were in existence long before that. Funny how you keep claiming that we’re the ones who don’t know church history when you don’t even know this simple fact.

The Bible is not the sole basis for faith and morals.

Straw man. It’s already been explained to you that we don’t believe that.

That novel idea was one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism in the 16th century.

Sure it is. Whatever you say.

The Church is 364 years older than the Bible.

How much older than the individual books of the Bible is the church? How much older than the individual books of the Old Testament is the Church?

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I think he is, too, but even the most militant Catholic can’t deny that each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.

Militant Catholic?

Each of the Baptist Distinctives is not taught and practiced in Acts and other places. The first Baptists (who originated from the 16th century Anabaptists/Mennonites) date from c. 1607, founded by English Separatist John Smyth in Amsterdam.

Here are the Distinctives, with their “proof-texts”:

Biblical authority (Mat 24:35; 1 Pet 1:23; 2 Tim 3:16-17)
Autonomy of the local church (Mat 18:15-17; 1 Cor 6:1-3)
Priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:5-9; 1 Tim 5)
Two ordinances (believer’s baptism and the Lord’s Supper) (Acts 2:41-47; 1 Cor 11:23-32)
Individual soul liberty (Rom 14:5-12)
Separation of Church and State (Mat 22:15-22)
Two offices of the church (pastor and deacon) (1 Tim 3:1-13; Tit 1-2)

The Bible is not the sole basis for faith and morals. That novel idea was one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism in the 16th century. The Church is 364 years older than the Bible.

The local Churches were never autonomous. They were under the authority and jurisdiction of one of more of the Apostles and the bishops and priests they ordained.

The Catholic Church teaches the priesthood of all believers, but not to the exclusion of the ministerial priesthood that existed in the early Church.

“Ordinances” no. Seven Sacraments, yes. Believers baptism and a symbolic “Lord’s Supper” are not biblical.

Individual soul liberty means the right of private interpretation of Scripture and “Every man has the right to hold such religious opinions as he believes the Bible teaches, without harm or hindrance from any one on that account, so long as he does not intrude upon, or interfere with, the rights of others by doing so.” Not biblical.

Separation of Church and State: It’s a stretch to interpret that political concept out of Mt 22:15-22.

The NT describes three offices: Bishop, Priest, Deacon. Baptists claim pastor and bishop fulfill the same function and did away with the office of bishop.

fbinstitute.com/moore/baptistdist.html

 

[Rag_Hanger]

Militant Catholic?

Each of the Baptist Distinctives is not taught and practiced in Acts and other places. The first Baptists (who originated from the 16th century Anabaptists/Mennonites) date from c. 1607, founded by English Separatist John Smyth in Amsterdam.

Actually, Anabaptist groups, from which Baptists are descended were in existence long before that.

The Bible is not the sole basis for faith and morals.

Straw man. It’s already been explained to you that we don’t believe that.

That novel idea was one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism in the 16th century.

Sure it is. Whatever you say.

The Church is 364 years older than the Bible.

How much older than the individual books of the Bible is the church? How much older than the Old Testament is the Church?

 

[Rag_Hanger]

Just to clarify, my last post was edited by the moderators to make it appear as though I was brushing off a request for evidence and was not willing to answer the question.

I assure you, this was not the case.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think he is, too, but even the most militant Catholic can’t deny that each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.

Rag Hanger,

Quote of an earlier post regarding our thread topic: “Southern Baptists and saved/born again…”
Anna Scott;8141109:

jason3477,

I’m a former Southern Baptist.

Southern Baptists believe salvation includes regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification

, and none of these are related to Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. See The Baptist Faith and Message, IV. Salvation, Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i

Regeneration is defined as “new birth” and “a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.” It involves “a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” For the Southern Baptist, “repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace.”

How to Become A Christian (link: sbc.net/knowjesus/theplan.asp): They suggest this prayer: “Lord Jesus, I know that I am a sinner and I do not deserve eternal life. But, I believe You died and rose from the grave to make me a new creation and to prepare me to dwell in your presence forever. Jesus, come into my life, take control of my life, forgive my sins and save me. I am now placing my trust in You alone for my salvation and I accept your free gift of eternal life.”

The SBC believes Baptism is a church ordinance, not a Sacrament. Southern Baptists do not believe any Graces are imparted in Baptism or the Lord’s Supper. In fact, Baptism performed as a Sacrament is not recognized as valid, even if Baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So, if you were Baptized by a Church that believes Baptism is a Sacrament and Graces are imparted, such as the forgiveness of sin----- or lacks belief in the “security of the believer”; you must be Baptized again in the Southern Baptist Church.

There is an interesting “position” paper on the Southern Baptist Convention website, though it has not yet been adopted by the board of trustees. Final editing is to be made by the chairman of the board.

Southern Baptist Convention Link: imb.org/main/news/details.asp?LanguageID=1709&StoryID=3840

**Position Paper Concerning the IMB Guideline on Baptism
a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

"Baptism must take place in a church that practices believer’s baptism by immersion alone, does not view baptism as sacramental or regenerative, and a church that embraces the doctrine of the security of the believer.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or in a church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his/her Southern Baptist church as a testimony of identification with the system of belief held by Southern Baptist churches."**

Ironically, Southern Baptists look to Scripture for their beliefs. Yet, Holy Scripture clearly connects the forgiveness of sins with Baptism ( Acts 2:38). Baptism is the “circumcision made without hands”; being buried with Christ in Baptism, and raised with Him through faith, is connected with the powerful working of God. (Colossians 2:11-15) Just as circumcision brought the Jews into the Old Covenant, Baptism brings us into the New Covenant.

Peace,
Anna

You claim that “each of the Baptist Distinctives is found to be taught and practiced in Acts and other places.”

Please provide support for the Baptist “born-again” distinctives–from Acts and other places— to support exclusion of the Sacramental nature of Baptism, to support the exclusion of infant Baptism; and to support the necessity that one must embrace the “doctrine of the security of the believer” as a condition of Baptism.

Peace,
Anna

HI, Rag…could you then provide some examples of these Distinctives and show their Biblical support or how these were practiced in Acts and other places?

There are many fine resources on the internet that you will find if you google “Baptist Distinctives”.

Rag Hanger,

Out of respect for the OP, please at least provide support for the Baptist “born-again” distinctives–from Acts and other places—since you claim they are there.

This would include providing support for the belief that one prayer results in immediate salvation (born again or new birth) and guarantees security of that salvation; and the exclusion of the Sacramental nature of Baptism; and the exclusion of infant Baptism; and the necessity that one must embrace the “doctrine of the security of the believer” as a condition of Baptism.

If you make a claim, the burden of proof lies with you. That is part of respectful discussion.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Rag Hanger,

Out of respect for the OP, please at least provide support for the Baptist “born-again” distinctives–from Acts and other places—since you claim they are there.

This would include providing support for the belief that one prayer results in immediate salvation (born again or new birth) and guarantees security of that salvation; and the exclusion of the Sacramental nature of Baptism; and the exclusion of infant Baptism; and the necessity that one must embrace the “doctrine of the security of the believer” as a condition of Baptism.

If you make a claim, the burden of proof lies with you. That is part of respectful discussion.

Oops. I see I’m too late.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Originally Posted by Jim Dandy **Militant Catholic?

Each of the Baptist Distinctives is not taught and practiced in Acts and other places. The first Baptists (who originated from the 16th century Anabaptists/Mennonites) date from c. 1607, founded by English Separatist John Smyth in Amsterdam.

Rag Hanger wrote:

Actually, Anabaptist groups, from which Baptists are descended were in existence long before that. Funny how you keep claiming that we’re the ones who don’t know church history when you don’t even know this simple fact.

Funny how you didn’t read all of my post before you replied – as you can see (if you’ll look again) that I said Baptists originated from the 16th century Anabaptists/Mennonites.

QUOTE:

Historians trace the earliest Baptist church back to 1609 in Amsterdam, with English Separatist John Smyth as its pastor

Source:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist

If you dismiss Wiki, this site contains the same information:
baptisthistory.org/baptistbeginnings.htm

Jim Dandy

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Jim Dandy wrote:

The Bible is not the sole basis for faith and morals.

Rag Hanger replied:

Straw man. It’s already been explained to you that we don’t believe that.

Since Sola Scriptura is the first of the Baptist Distinctives, why would you or any Baptist deny it?

Jim Dandy wrote:

That novel idea was one of the foundational beliefs of Protestantism in the 16th century.

**Rag Hanger replied: **

Sure it is. Whatever you say.

Thank you for acknowledging that Sola Scriptura, on which all of Protestantism is based, is a doctrine that dates only from the 16th century. Jesus and the Apostles didn’t teach it.

Jim Dandy wrote:

The Church is 364 years older than the Bible.

**Rag Hanger replied: **

How much older than the individual books of the Bible is the church?

The Catholic Church was about 18 years old when 1 Thessalonians (the first) was written c. A.D. 51, and about 57 or 67 years old when John’s Gospel (the probable last) was written A.D. 90 - 100.

**Rag Hangar wrote: **

How much older than the individual books of the Old Testament is the Church?

Father Abraham lived c. 1850 B.C. Judaism was a thousand years old when the first word of what the Church named the Old Testament was written, around the time of David and Solomon. It was another thousand years before it was finished, shortly before the birth of Christ. The OT is older than the Church, of course.

Jim Dandy

 

[jlhargus]

Mark for remarks