Historic Baptist Confession compared to Luther?

[JM]

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?

We are to reform to the truth of scripture…always. As an member of the Eastern Orthodox church you can recognize in the early church how Christians struggled to understand the person and nature of Christ, the Trinity, Arianism, etc. The early church reformed it's understanding of Christ and the Trinity repeatedly. It’s no different today. We are always reforming ourselves, doctrine and practice to scripture. Reformation also prevents heaps of tradition from overlapping and obscuring doctrines that have been clearly revealed.

 

[JM]

Tradition can be a slave master and cause you to reject the clear teaching of scripture as Christ warned in the New Testament. Christ said, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” This should cause us to pause and ask ourselves, “do I hold to traditions that cause me to break the commandments of God?” For us Baptists, historically speaking, images should not be used in worship. This might cause some problems for Eastern Orthodox folks. EO and Lutheranism, if I’m not mistaken, break up the 10 Commandments in a similar fashion which allows for the 2nd command to be a part of another command. It obscures the warning against images.

Gotta run.

j

 

[JM]

From a Baptist catechism on images:

Q. 107 What is God’s will for us in the second commandment?

A. That we in no way make any image of God1 nor worship him in any other way than he has commanded in his Word.2

1Deut. 4:15-19; Isa. 40:18-25; Acts 17:29; Rom. 1:22-23
2Lev. 10:1-7; 1 Sam. 15:22-23; John 4:23-24

Q. 108 May we then not make any image at all?

A. God can not and may not be visibly portrayed in any way. Although creatures may be portrayed, yet God forbids making or having such images if one’s intention is to worship them or to serve God through them.1

1Ex. 34:13-14, 17; 2 Kings 18:4-5

Q. 109 But may not images be permitted in the churches as teaching aids for the unlearned?

A. No, we shouldn’t try to be wiser than God. He wants his people instructed by the living preaching of his Word—1 not by idols that cannot even talk.2

1Rom. 10:14-15, 17; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:19
2Jer. 10:8; Hab. 2:18-20

 

[Hammster]

I would think that FundamentalISTS would hold to FundamentalISM.

Just a thought.

 

[JM]

We have fundamentals of the faith but we also have Fundamental-ism. Fundamental-ism has morphed the fundamentals into a semi-gnostic Christianity. Often Fundies’ are against drinking, rock music, movies, etc. believing they are inherently evil and must be avoided. They also place the “flesh” contra the “spirit” as if both do not make the whole man. You’ll also find Heaven is emphasized over a redeemed earth and creation. Heaven is not our home but a place we go before Christ returns and redeems the world. Many American Baptists would fall into this classification. When Liberalism entered into the church through Europe Fundamentalism popped up in reaction to it. It is largely reactionary and seeks to insulate itself from the “world.” For the Orthodox reader you may compare American Fundamentalism to the reactionary impulse of Eastern Orthodoxy during the time of the Ottomans.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We are to reform to the truth of scripture…always. As an member of the Eastern Orthodox church you can recognize in the early church how Christians struggled to understand the person and nature of Christ, the Trinity, Arianism, etc. The early church reformed it's understanding of Christ and the Trinity repeatedly. It’s no different today. We are always reforming ourselves, doctrine and practice to scripture. Reformation also prevents heaps of tradition from overlapping and obscuring doctrines that have been clearly revealed.

Thank you for the reply. I suppose I'm wondering if there are lines which would be held against reforming.

That could mean "we are SURE about this and won't change our minds" (which is why I chose the example of the distinction between Creator and creation. Or it could represent inflexibility. I was just curious.

I am familiar with the Church's refinement of Christology and Trinitarian dogmas, particularly, over the first centuries. It's a good example you give, being foundational to our faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.



Protestant/Baptists are not dogmatic about eschatology.

Ah, some are, but that may be on a congregational level. That was the first time my salvation was called into question, when I expressed an opinion at having seen indications in Scripture of anything other than a pre-trib rapture. But I've sat under other Baptist preachers that taught differently or allowed some variance.

Now that you mention it, I've heard some reference to early millennial beliefs.

Not that Orthodox are part of this conversation, but our concerns with eschatology have more to do with salvation of the soul and the restoration of creation.

I'm not that versed on Lutheran eschatology, but every Lutheran I have discussed it with was Amill, iirc. I may not have a sample of the full range though.

It is of lesser importance to me than other beliefs, and I think in all humility we ought to realize that it's possible to not fully understand prophecy before it comes to pass, and we can be wrong on how we interpret some particular things.

Thank you for the reply.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Tradition can be a slave master and cause you to reject the clear teaching of scripture as Christ warned in the New Testament. Christ said, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” This should cause us to pause and ask ourselves, “do I hold to traditions that cause me to break the commandments of God?” For us Baptists, historically speaking, images should not be used in worship. This might cause some problems for Eastern Orthodox folks. EO and Lutheranism, if I’m not mistaken, break up the 10 Commandments in a similar fashion which allows for the 2nd command to be a part of another command. It obscures the warning against images.

Gotta run.

j

From what I have seen, you are right that this may represent a clear difference between Lutherans and Baptists.

I understand your point of view, and thank you for the explanation.

I wouldn't say EO have a problem as there is very much more to it than that. I'm not precisely sure of some of some of the details from a Lutheran pov, but I will look into it. That may figure into what I'm trying to understand.

Thank you for mentioning this, as I think it would represent a clear point of divergence, particularly if it was a part of the earliest Baptist teaching.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Hi Joe, good friend! Thanks for sharing this.

You're welcome! There are a lot of competing interests in Baptist circles today, to the point where the name "Baptist" on the door now can be counted on as little more than that the church baptizes by submersion.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

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

Nope. Independent Fundamental Baptist was the name given or adopted to clarify the distinction of those who follow the word of God and nothing else as their creed. John the Baptist was the first Independent Fundamental Baptist, and Jesus Christ took up John's preaching with John's exact words when He began His ministry: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Sects and denominations of today want to deny the history of the Church and the continuity of the doctrine of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and His apostles so they try to obscure the reality that the Church of Jesus Christ was a Baptist Church, independent and fundamental, with no need of advertising the name IFB and no denominations and sects claiming to have the Truth cornered to the point where they felt the need to apply a name to be used with derogatory implications to those who upheld the teachings of Jesus Christ and His apostles' doctrine.

There has always been a scarlet thread unbroken from the time God promised the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head....a thread dipped in the blood of the Lamb of God. There have always been a group of believers who did not veer from the teachings of Christ and His apostles, there has always been the Word of God unchanged and unchangeable.

To follow the history of Baptists, real Baptists and limiting or chopping off the continuity of the Church through the apostles and the leaders they placed as their successors, you have to start with John the Baptist, count Constantine as heretical from his start, and follow their history outside of any creeds other than the word of God, preceding Constantine, continuing through the dark ages, and never signing on in agreement with the London Baptist Confession.
Independent Fundamental Baptists have never reformed and will never reform. They did not need any protestant reformation to become Baptists. They were not and are not a sect thought they are called a sect by sectarians such as Lutherans. They simply followed the commands of Christ under the leadership of the apostles and baptized disciples after they were converted from eternal condemnation of Hell to eternal blessings of life. They were Baptists the same as John the Baptist. The apostles held John's Baptism as the rule established by Jesus Christ, and they were Baptists....and they were extremely fundamental and independent, and they paid for it with their blood and lives as have independent fundamental Baptists ever since John the Baptist got his head cut off for preaching against specific sins in specific people.

Independent Fundamental Baptists accept that IFB term, though it is usually applied in a derogatory fashion to Baptists who reject the London Baptist Confession, because it accurately enough emphasizes the Baptist distinctive.

It was good enough for John the Baptist, it's good enough for me. It was good enough for Paul to be baptized according to John's Baptism, it's good enough for me. Paul was an independent fundamental Baptist as was John No need for reform.

 

[Striver]

Number one, it's great to see a discussion with our Lutheran and EO friends here!

I realize I am a bit late to the party, but I think some of the questions you ask may be reasonably covered in a friendly debate of sorts which began on First Things but is well summarized at this link from TGC.

I am not an academic, but from what I've seen of historical Baptist faith and theology here in the United States, I would say that while the Calvinist (more specifically the Particular Baptist strand) tends to be the dominating strand of historical Baptists. However, I disagree with my brother JM on the Anabaptist influence. I think it's greater than he'd give credit.

Beginning with the articles above, you can see how Baptists were able to quite successfully disengage a portion of John Calvin's theology, in the form of soteriology, from full stop Calvinism (eg: his view of the sacraments and ecclesiology) and then mix it with what is more or less the Anabaptist political view of the separation of church and state. The Anabaptist tendency in Baptist life is towards a very anti-tradition stance, thus you get the "Just the Bible and me and nothing else!" statements, along with the political stance and even ecclesiastical result.

At the end of the day, you have three strands of Baptist, IMHO, mixing together: the Calvinists (aka Reformed Baptists who is quasi-confessional at least), the Free Will Baptists (the typical SBC'er in praxis, who abhors traditions even though she has her own), and then the IFB which embodies elements of both in a strange way.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

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>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

JOE the IFB said.........

It's all about power and control. That's why you are trying to imply "local congregational authority" to which IFB's would be considered as rebels. This kind of control is what has always resulted in real Christians who trust in nothing but the blood of Jesus Christ as their imputed righteousness being burned at the stake or boiled in oil.

Protestants like Luther and Calvin paid a price for their protests against Catholicism, but Christians were paying that price for obeying God's word with their own blood ever since John the Baptist paid it with his head on a charger and Jesus Christ paid it with His blood for our sins. Christians paid the price for being independent fundamental Baptists like John long before any groups organized to develop "creeds" which they used as control methods in their sects.
You cannot accurately describe or understand Independent Fundamental Baptists unless you start with John the Baptist and apply that term to him the same as you apply it to me.....there is a reason IFB's are hated above all other Christians, and it's not because modern sectarians disagree with their doctrines, it's because they hold John the Baptist to be the first IFB and because they recognize no Church authority other than Jesus Christ and His word. "Scholars" always try to muddy the waters to confuse the word of God and distort history. It's very simple to understand that God gave his word, some people believed it, and they gave their lives to pass it on to others who in turn would give their lives for it. As Jesus commanded that if we lose or lives for His sake and for His gospel, we will find it. We don't lose our life for a denomination or creed. We do not recognize congregational authorities claimed to have power by human organization and mutual human consent. We are Baptist and count it an honor if we suffer shame in persecutions for boldly preaching the gospel of God in His death, burial, and resurrection as Jesus Christ our Lord and only Head.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

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

Nope. Independent Fundamental Baptist was the name given or adopted to clarify the distinction of those who follow the word of God and nothing else as their creed. John the Baptist was the first Independent Fundamental Baptist, and Jesus Christ took up John's preaching with John's exact words when He began His ministry: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Sects and denominations of today want to deny the history of the Church and the continuity of the doctrine of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, and His apostles so they try to obscure the reality that the Church of Jesus Christ was a Baptist Church, independent and fundamental, with no need of advertising the name IFB and no denominations and sects claiming to have the Truth cornered.

To follow the history of Baptists, real Baptists and limiting or chopping off the continuity of the Church through the apostles and the leaders they placed as their successors, you have to start with John the Baptist, count Constantine as heretical from his start, and follow their history outside of any creeds other than the word of God, preceding Constantine, continuing through the dark ages, and never signing on in agreement with the London Baptist Confession.
Independent Fundamental Baptists have never reformed and will never reform. They did not need any protestant reformation to become Baptists. They were not and are not a sect thought they are called a sect by sectarians such as Lutherans. They simply followed the commands of Christ under the leadership of the apostles and baptized disciples after they were converted from eternal condemnation of Hell to eternal blessings of life. They were Baptists the same as John the Baptist. The apostles held John's Baptism as the rule established by Jesus Christ, and they were Baptists....and they were extremely fundamental and independent, and they paid for it with their blood and lives as have independent fundamental Baptists ever since John the Baptist got his head cut off for preaching against specific sins in specific people.

Independent Fundamental Baptists accept that IFB term, though it is usually applied in a derogatory fashion to Baptists who reject the London Baptist Confession, because it accurately enough emphasizes the Baptist distinctive.

It was good enough for John the Baptist, it's good enough for me. It was good enough for Paul to be baptized according to John's Baptism, it's good enough for me. Paul was an independent fundamental Baptist as was John and Jesus Christ. No need for reform.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Number one, it's great to see a discussion with our Lutheran and EO friends here!

I realize I am a bit late to the party, but I think some of the questions you ask may be reasonably covered in a friendly debate of sorts which began on First Things but is well summarized at this link from TGC.

I am not an academic, but from what I've seen of historical Baptist faith and theology here in the United States, I would say that while the Calvinist (more specifically the Particular Baptist strand) tends to be the dominating strand of historical Baptists. However, I disagree with my brother JM on the Anabaptist influence. I think it's greater than he'd give credit.

Beginning with the articles above, you can see how Baptists were able to quite successfully disengage a portion of John Calvin's theology, in the form of soteriology, from full stop Calvinism (eg: his view of the sacraments and ecclesiology) and then mix it with what is more or less the Anabaptist political view of the separation of church and state. The Anabaptist tendency in Baptist life is towards a very anti-tradition stance, thus you get the "Just the Bible and me and nothing else!" statements, along with the political stance and even ecclesiastical result.

At the end of the day, you have three strands of Baptist, IMHO, mixing together: the Calvinists (aka Reformed Baptists who is quasi-confessional at least), the Free Will Baptists (the typical SBC'er in praxis, who abhors traditions even though she has her own), and then the IFB which embodies elements of both in a strange way.

The "strange way" you insult IFB's with is not that they embody elements of Calvinists and Free Will Baptists. It is that they reject those sectarian systems of belief as heretical and erroneous responses to Catholicism in the protestant reformation. Calvinists and Armenians (free will Baptists) followed men and uphold the teachings of those men as authoritative. That is why Calvin tortured and killed anybody who questioned or withstood his teachings in Geneva, and it is why Calvinists today try to claim authority over Baptists through groups such as the SBC.

Again, you show the common prejudice and dislike against Baptists who refuse to bow to any authority other than Jesus Christ and His word.

 

[JM]

Number one, it's great to see a discussion with our Lutheran and EO friends here!

I realize I am a bit late to the party, but I think some of the questions you ask may be reasonably covered in a friendly debate of sorts which began on First Things but is well summarized at this link from TGC.

I am not an academic, but from what I've seen of historical Baptist faith and theology here in the United States, I would say that while the Calvinist (more specifically the Particular Baptist strand) tends to be the dominating strand of historical Baptists. However, I disagree with my brother JM on the Anabaptist influence. I think it's greater than he'd give credit.

Beginning with the articles above, you can see how Baptists were able to quite successfully disengage a portion of John Calvin's theology, in the form of soteriology, from full stop Calvinism (eg: his view of the sacraments and ecclesiology) and then mix it with what is more or less the Anabaptist political view of the separation of church and state. The Anabaptist tendency in Baptist life is towards a very anti-tradition stance, thus you get the "Just the Bible and me and nothing else!" statements, along with the political stance and even ecclesiastical result.

At the end of the day, you have three strands of Baptist, IMHO, mixing together: the Calvinists (aka Reformed Baptists who is quasi-confessional at least), the Free Will Baptists (the typical SBC'er in praxis, who abhors traditions even though she has her own), and then the IFB which embodies elements of both in a strange way.

Striver, if you read the works of the 17th century Baptists it's clear they came out of Puritanism but had a different view of baptism due to their understanding of the covenants. It was covenant theology that lead them to reject infant baptism and at every turn they tried to distance themselves from the Anabaptists.

Why? As one person paedobaptist noted, "There were many more problems that just baptism with the Anabaptists, often amounting a a denial of justification by faith, a denial of a substitutionary atonement, a denial of the validity of the Old Testament and its teachings, of civil authority, carnal institution, etc. They also typically emphasized an immediate working of the Holy Spirit in believers." Baptists were not Anabaptists. If you read the historic confessions and position papers the Baptists tried to saddle up to the Reformers which is why both Free Will Baptists and Particular Baptists rewrote the Westminster Confession and republished it.

Not everyone has time to trace the history so I'll recommend The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology. Many of the sources cited in this work can be found online so I read them as well.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Kylissa, you’ll notice IFB’s will war over anything. It’s part of the Fundamentalist psyche, to disagree just to disagree.

I think we should get back to the op?

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Ah, some are, but that may be on a congregational level. That was the first time my salvation was called into question, when I expressed an opinion at having seen indications in Scripture of anything other than a pre-trib rapture. But I've sat under other Baptist preachers that taught differently or allowed some variance.

Now that you mention it, I've heard some reference to early millennial beliefs.

Not that Orthodox are part of this conversation, but our concerns with eschatology have more to do with salvation of the soul and the restoration of creation.

I'm not that versed on Lutheran eschatology, but every Lutheran I have discussed it with was Amill, iirc. I may not have a sample of the full range though.

It is of lesser importance to me than other beliefs, and I think in all humility we ought to realize that it's possible to not fully understand prophecy before it comes to pass, and we can be wrong on how we interpret some particular things.

Thank you for the reply.

Lutherans who are not amill are not really Lutheran.

 

[JM]

Lutherans who are not amill are not really Lutheran.

Amil is chill.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Lutherans who are not amill are not really Lutheran.

Thanks, Mark. I wasn't really sure. It wasn't a doctrine I focused on, but I have had a number of Lutherans affirm it. But I wasn't sure it was universal among Lutherans.

So that is potentially another area of on which to compare early Baptist confessions, although it's not really important in the scheme of things I'm focusing on.

Thank you again for clarifying.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Soteriology would be the MOST important aspect I'd be interested in, followed by sacramental theology.

After that, pious and spiritual practices and worship - though I'm more interested in differences (or similarities) in basic beliefs that affects these outward practices.

Normative and regulative principles have mean mentioned, but I haven't pursued that as I don't wish to ask questions that could be perceived as argumentative.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Number one, it's great to see a discussion with our Lutheran and EO friends here!

I realize I am a bit late to the party, but I think some of the questions you ask may be reasonably covered in a friendly debate of sorts which began on First Things but is well summarized at this link from TGC.

I am not an academic, but from what I've seen of historical Baptist faith and theology here in the United States, I would say that while the Calvinist (more specifically the Particular Baptist strand) tends to be the dominating strand of historical Baptists. However, I disagree with my brother JM on the Anabaptist influence. I think it's greater than he'd give credit.

Beginning with the articles above, you can see how Baptists were able to quite successfully disengage a portion of John Calvin's theology, in the form of soteriology, from full stop Calvinism (eg: his view of the sacraments and ecclesiology) and then mix it with what is more or less the Anabaptist political view of the separation of church and state. The Anabaptist tendency in Baptist life is towards a very anti-tradition stance, thus you get the "Just the Bible and me and nothing else!" statements, along with the political stance and even ecclesiastical result.

At the end of the day, you have three strands of Baptist, IMHO, mixing together: the Calvinists (aka Reformed Baptists who is quasi-confessional at least), the Free Will Baptists (the typical SBC'er in praxis, who abhors traditions even though she has her own), and then the IFB which embodies elements of both in a strange way.

Greetings, Striver!

I may have seen you around GT or elsewhere in CF. Thank you for the link. I'll have a look.