Historic Baptist Confession compared to Luther?

[~Anastasia~]

Hello all,

I hope you will indulge me posting in your congregational area. I asked this question originally in Traditional Theology, but got no replies. I am hoping someone here can shed some light on the question?

And by the way, I assure you I have no intention at all of arguing. I'm just trying to better understand.

Thank you!

Here is the original question:

I'm not really very familiar with the ORIGINAL Baptist confession, despite having been various kinds of Baptist for years in the past. I am probably more comfortable in understanding what Lutherans believe.

I'm interested in knowing, for the sake of personal discussions irl, what the similarities and differences are between the early Baptist confession and what Luther believed and taught?

Would you say that the Baptist confession represented a desire to "further correct" the things Luther was addressing?

Thanks so much for any input.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Subscribing.

 

[JM]

You mean Melanchthonism not Lutheranism. Subscribed.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

You mean Melanchthonism not Lutheranism. Subscribed.

Yes, you could consider more liberal Philipist Lutherans too.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You mean Melanchthonism not Lutheranism. Subscribed.

For the purposes I was hoping to have the question answered, I really did mean Luther. But I won't quibble. It's been difficult to get any answers at all, so I will take what I can get at this point.

Thanks for the reply!

 

[JM]

We differ on Church government, Lord's Supper, numbering of the 10 Commandments, baptism...off the top of my head.

American Baptists are probably closer to Lutherans on soteriology than any other doctrine.

Melanchthonism toned down Luther's doctrine of predestination and a few other area's which is why some call Lutheranism Melanchthonism.

I'm a Reformed Baptist by the way.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for the reply.

Maybe I should be asking about the history of Baptists? The early confessions?

I don't really know the "evolution" of Baptists (forgive me, I hope that word is in no way offensive, but I know there are different kinds of Baptists, and the beliefs must have diverged, refined, and/or been influenced in some cases?).

I have been surprised, for example, to learn Luther's definition of sola scriptura, and compare that to a common evangelical understanding (which various Baptists may or may not subscribe to). So one of very many things I am curious about is whether it was further refined from Luther in the early Baptist confessions, since that time, or both?

The ordinances are another particular area of interest to me, and again, how they began and how they are viewed now, and if there have been changes.

Other things as well, but those are two particular areas.

 

[JM]

What you find with the Baptists is an insistence on the Bible alone. We are the heirs of the Puritans, maintaining the early church practice of confessors baptism by immersion...

I'll post more latter.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Hello all,

I hope you will indulge me posting in your congregational area. I asked this question originally in Traditional Theology, but got no replies. I am hoping someone here can shed some light on the question?

And by the way, I assure you I have no intention at all of arguing. I'm just trying to better understand.

Thank you!

Here is the original question:

I'm not really very familiar with the ORIGINAL Baptist confession, despite having been various kinds of Baptist for years in the past. I am probably more comfortable in understanding what Lutherans believe.

I'm interested in knowing, for the sake of personal discussions irl, what the similarities and differences are between the early Baptist confession and what Luther believed and taught?

Would you say that the Baptist confession represented a desire to "further correct" the things Luther was addressing?

Thanks so much for any input.

Independent Fundamental Baptists like myself hold only one confession of faith, and that is something like "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner". John the Baptist was the first Baptist, Jesus was baptized by John after commanding John to baptize Him to fulfill all righteousness, the 11 apostles chose a replacement for Judas with being baptized under John's baptism as a necessary requirement. Paul was chosen by Jesus Christ and then baptized in accordance with John's baptism. Jesus commanded the disciples to preach the gospel in all the world , making disciples, and baptize them.

Baptists like myself are not protestants. Protestants broke off from the Catholic church after they saw for themselves the Lord's leading in salvation as they studied His word. There has always been churches, open when culture allowed or underground in times of persecution such as the dark ages when Catholicism tortured and killed many "heretics' who through tradition of carefully protected written scriptures were taught in the Biblical pattern of church building and spreading the gospel in the world.

There has always been a group of disciples who have upheld Biblical faith and there always will be. Protestants such as Luther deserve a lot of credit and will get a fine reward in heaven, but there has always been a group faithful and persecuted for their faith long before Luther woke up to the evils of Catholic political rule near the end of the dark ages.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

[If you are referring to the 1689 Baptist confession, that is an agreement which rose from the Protestants. The main competing ideologies among the Protestants were Arminianism, Calvinism, and Seventh Day Adventism. These sects tend to say, from what I have researched and I am open to correction, that Baptists was a denomination that began shortly before or around the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Independent Fundamental Baptists reject the 1689 Baptist Confession because of it's supports of Calvinism. The 1689 Baptist Confession is generally upheld by the Southern Baptist Convention. The only "ism" supported by Independent Fundamental Baptists like myself is baptism, the only "ism" commanded by the Lord for His people...make disciples and baptize them.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

[If you are referring to the 1689 Baptist confession, that is an agreement which rose from the Protestants. The main competing ideologies among the Protestants were Arminianism, Calvinism, and Seventh Day Adventism. These sects tend to say, from what I have researched and I am open to correction, that Baptists was a denomination that began shortly before or around the time of the Protestant Reformation.

Independent Fundamental Baptists reject the 1689 Baptist Confession because of it's supports of Calvinism. The 1689 Baptist Confession is generally upheld by the Southern Baptist Convention. The only "ism" supported by Independent Fundamental Baptists like myself is baptism, the only "ism" commanded by the Lord for His people...make disciples and baptize them.

Hi Joe, good friend! Thanks for sharing this.

 

[JM]

Independent Fundamental Baptists were a late development or strain of Baptists. The Plymouth Brethren or Gospel Hall Christians sprung up in the early 1800's as a reaction to European Liberal Christianity especially in the Anglican church. It was through the Niagara Bible conferences held in North America their ideas such as using wooden literal hermeneutics, often extreme sectarianism, Pretrib rapture (created by Brethren John Nelson Darby), etc. gained acceptance with Baptists. Before that time most were of a Reformed or Calvinist stripe using different confessions of faith that mirrored the theological categories used by the rest of Protestantism. The largest Baptist conventions were always Reformed and Calvinistic including the SBC. So, IFB's reject or think little of local congregational authority and deny the use of confessions due to the theology they inherited from the Gospel Hall Brethren who link both ideas with Anglicanism. IFBs should be considered a late and separate form of Baptist theology.

Another important point of difference is the Lutheran use of the Normative Principle of Worship which essentially states that which isn't forbidden by scripture is allowed in worship. Historically Baptists have eject this and follow the Regulative Principle of Worship, albeit, to different degrees. Baptists believe that if it isn't prescribed in scripture for worship than it should not be done. The baptism of infants is not commanded, therefore, it should not be done.

Gotta run, coffee is getting cold.

j

 

[JM]

PS: All knowledgeable Baptists trace their history thru the separatists and Puritans of England. Some IFBs wrongly link us with Anabaptists but if you read the history and practice of the Anabaptists you will find the only thing modern Baptists share with them is confessor baptism, they didn't even preform the act of baptism the way Baptists do...by immersion. Baptists exist today because of the Protestant ideal of semper reformanda which means 'always reforming' which we did and is why Spurgeon called us heirs of the Puritans.

Anabaptists even had different reasons for confessors baptism then the reasons Baptists gave during the 17th century !

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for the replies. I realize there will be some disagreement among different Baptists, and I don't wish to stir up trouble or controversy in your forum. I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions. If you all don't mind, I won't seek to resolve any particular disagreements, but I may have separate questions. Thank you so very much for your input.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Independent Fundamental Baptists like myself hold only one confession of faith, and that is something like "Lord, have mercy on me a sinner". John the Baptist was the first Baptist, Jesus was baptized by John after commanding John to baptize Him to fulfill all righteousness, the 11 apostles chose a replacement for Judas with being baptized under John's baptism as a necessary requirement. Paul was chosen by Jesus Christ and then baptized in accordance with John's baptism. Jesus commanded the disciples to preach the gospel in all the world , making disciples, and baptize them.

Baptists like myself are not protestants. Protestants broke off from the Catholic church after they saw for themselves the Lord's leading in salvation as they studied His word. There has always been churches, open when culture allowed or underground in times of persecution such as the dark ages when Catholicism tortured and killed many "heretics' who through tradition of carefully protected written scriptures were taught in the Biblical pattern of church building and spreading the gospel in the world.

There has always been a group of disciples who have upheld Biblical faith and there always will be. Protestants such as Luther deserve a lot of credit and will get a fine reward in heaven, but there has always been a group faithful and persecuted for their faith long before Luther woke up to the evils of Catholic political rule near the end of the dark ages.

Thank you for the reply.

May I ask some follow-up questions?

You mention the baptism of John - do you see that as the same baptism practiced today? Would you say the baptism of John can properly be called "the baptism unto repentance"?

Do you see baptism as essential? What, if anything, does it accomplish? What happens then if a person fails to be baptized?

You said baptism was the only thing you hold to. What about the Lord's Supper/Communion? Is that also practiced/essential?

Thank you!

 

[~Anastasia~]

PS: All knowledgeable Baptists trace their history thru the separatists and Puritans of England. Some IFBs wrongly link us with Anabaptists but if you read the history and practice of the Anabaptists you will find the only thing modern Baptists share with them is confessor baptism, they didn't even preform the act of baptism the way Baptists do...by immersion. Baptists exist today because of the Protestant ideal of semper reformanda which means 'always reforming' which we did and is why Spurgeon called us heirs of the Puritans.

Anabaptists even had different reasons for confessors baptism then the reasons Baptists gave during the 17th century !

Actually I didn't know about the "always reforming" part. That in itself raises quite a few questions.

I guess primarily I have to wonder - surely there are things which are accepted as being absolute truths, and not open to bring reformed?

Are there then categories of what may be reformed, and what cannot be? I hope this question makes sense. But from this being a completely new idea to me, it seems obvious that certain things surely cannot be reformed - something like the most basic being a distinction between Creator God and His creation (us as created beings) ... and it seems to me that you can order things with more and less surety, so somewhere there must be a line of things that are not open to reformation.

Is that articulated somewhere? Forgive me, this may be a very foreign line of thought to your theology, and may sound like a stupid question, but I'm just starting at the beginning.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Independent Fundamental Baptists were a late development or strain of Baptists. The Plymouth Brethren or Gospel Hall Christians sprung up in the early 1800's as a reaction to European Liberal Christianity especially in the Anglican church. It was through the Niagara Bible conferences held in North America their ideas such as using wooden literal hermeneutics, often extreme sectarianism, Pretrib rapture (created by Brethren John Nelson Darby), etc. gained acceptance with Baptists. Before that time most were of a Reformed or Calvinist stripe using different confessions of faith that mirrored the theological categories used by the rest of Protestantism. The largest Baptist conventions were always Reformed and Calvinistic including the SBC. So, IFB's reject or think little of local congregational authority and deny the use of confessions due to the theology they inherited from the Gospel Hall Brethren who link both ideas with Anglicanism. IFBs should be considered a late and separate form of Baptist theology.

Another important point of difference is the Lutheran use of the Normative Principle of Worship which essentially states that which isn't forbidden by scripture is allowed in worship. Historically Baptists have eject this and follow the Regulative Principle of Worship, albeit, to different degrees. Baptists believe that if it isn't prescribed in scripture for worship than it should not be done. The baptism of infants is not commanded, therefore, it should not be done.

Gotta run, coffee is getting cold.

j

Thank you, several points in the history you mention are helpful.

To really be able to have the discussions I want to have, I'm eventually going to have to better understand how different types of Baptists came into being and developed their theology. I need a giant checklist, lol.

I think I am looking most particularly at a Reformed Baptist theology, strongly influenced by Calvinism, accepting pre-trib rapture. I'm not sure what else to look at.

But my original goal was to understand how Baptists developed in relation to Lutheranism, since I have read more particularly in Lutheran theology.

Being exposed to so many different kinds of baptist churches growing up probably led to my confusion. My family was simply "Baptist" and never made a real distinction, probably as a result of coming from a very tiny town and there was only one Baptist Church within traveling distance in those days.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Another important point of difference is the Lutheran use of the Normative Principle of Worship which essentially states that which isn't forbidden by scripture is allowed in worship. Historically Baptists have eject this and follow the Regulative Principle of Worship, albeit, to different degrees. Baptists believe that if it isn't prescribed in scripture for worship than it should not be done. The baptism of infants is not commanded, therefore, it should not be done.

j

This makes me want to ask a question, but it really don't want to come off as argumentative.

Yes, it's not pertinent to my question here, and I don't wish to abuse your hospitality. It also can involve other denominations as well so doesn't rightly belong here.

I think it better that I make a thread in GT or elsewhere, though I fear that might explode, as those often do.

Thank you for mentioning it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Where did pre-trib rapture and belief in a literal millennial reign of Christ enter Baptist theology?

Which Baptists subscribe/don't subscribe to these?

 

[JM]

Where did pre-trib rapture and belief in a literal millennial reign of Christ enter Baptist theology?

Historic Premil has been around from the beginning but was later rejected for Amil/Postmil views. Lutherans were not immune to millennial fever, the massive work “The Theocratic Kingdom” which teaching Dispensationalism, was written by a Luther in the 1800’s. Dispensationalism relies on a strict separation between ethnic Israel and the church in the New Testament. This was not taught before 1800 ad.

Which Baptists subscribe/don't subscribe to these?

Protestant/Baptists are not dogmatic about eschatology.