Historic Baptist Confession compared to Luther?

[JM]

Baptists, Lutherans and Reformed folks would all believe we are saved by Christ through faith alone. Where you find disagreement is in the details. Western Christians use apophatic theology but prefer to say what something is rather than what something isn't like Eastern Orthodoxy.

Let's not forget original sin! Baptists and Lutherans agree on that.

jm

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Baptists, Lutherans and Reformed folks would all believe we are saved by Christ through faith alone. Where you find disagreement is in the details. Western Christians use apophatic theology but prefer to say what something is rather than what something isn't like Eastern Orthodoxy.

Let's not forget original sin! Baptists and Lutherans agree on that.

jm

Regarding original sin, Catholics too.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Regarding original sin, Catholics too.

I was curious if the understanding of original sin was the same among all three. I believe the EO is the only disagreement among Christendom on that count, which makes sense if the doctrine developed as I understand it did - among the Catholics, so that everything Protestant or otherwise developing from the Catholic Church retained that understanding?

The main difference with EO, if I can properly explain, seems to be an inheritance of guilt and/or "sin nature". The EO tend to view creation as fallen, but not an individual baby who is born (though we do say that humans were originally created in the image and likeness of God - yet His likeness in us is marred because of sin in the world). However, due to the nature of the sin-infected world we live in, and our imperfect state, it IS inevitable that all WILL sin. Another difference is that we believe a baby does not inherit the guilt of Adam's sin, but develops his own guilt for his personal sins.

Lutherans and Baptists all see the infant himself as fallen, with a totally depraved nature, and guilty of Adam's sin?

Though Baptists (afaik) tend to use the explanation of not having reached "the age of accountability" to say that the infant would not be condemned if it died, while Lutherans are paedobaptists ... yet also afaik, the Lutherans (like the EO) would essentially trust an unbaptized infant who died (or one who was miscarried) to the mercy of a loving God, and expect that child not to be condemned, due to the nature of God.

Have I got that right?

 

[tall73]

[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.

Seventh-day Adventism?

No. That did not start until after the Millerite movement of 1844.

 

[JM]

I think Joe meant Sabbatarianism not Adventist...but I don't believe Saturday Sabbatarianism was wide spread.

As for original sin, the East had John Cassain and his Conferences the West had Augustine. Augustine articulated Romans 5 (known as federalism) very well, so well that the Council of Orange declared his view to be correct over and against what is known as Pelagianism. It's probably safe to say Lutherans and Baptists disagree with the way Orthodoxy expresses soteriology.

Augustine was largely ignored in the East, probably because he wrote in Latin at first, but latter due to his writings on the Trinity. (See Filoque)

J

 

[JM]

Bump

 

[JM]

As a Reformed Credo-Baptist I agree with Bavinck's assessment.

“The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast, the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God. For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all paganism- idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism- works righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the ‘wherefore’ of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the ‘that’ and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained.” Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics

 

[mikedsjr]

Interesting stuff. Since rejecting the idea of age of accountability, my Baptist theology has looked more like Lutheran, even though I still attend a Baptist church.

 

[twin1954]

Interesting stuff. Since rejecting the idea of age of accountability, my Baptist theology has looked more like Lutheran, even though I still attend a Baptist church.

Would you agree or disagree with this message?



Federal Headship | SermonAudio.com

 

[mikedsjr]

Would you agree or disagree with this message?



Federal Headship | SermonAudio.com

Listened to it from start to finish. Very good presentation on Federal headship which i agree with.

What baptist groups don't believe this?

 

[JM]

I've listen to and read that fellas material in the past and find it helpful.

 

[mikedsjr]

As a Reformed Credo-Baptist I agree with Bavinck's assessment.

“The difference seems to be conveyed best by saying that the Reformed Christian thinks theologically, the Lutheran anthropologically. The Reformed person is not content with an exclusively historical stance but raises his sights to the idea, the eternal decree of God. By contrast, the Lutheran takes his position in the midst of the history of redemption and feels no need to enter more deeply into the counsel of God. For the Reformed, therefore, election is the heart of the church; for Lutherans, justification is the article by which the church stands or falls. Among the former the primary question is: How is the glory of God advanced? Among the latter it is: How does a human get saved? The struggle of the former is above all paganism- idolatry; that of the latter against Judaism- works righteousness. The Reformed person does not rest until he has traced all things retrospectively to the divine decree, tracking down the ‘wherefore’ of things, and has prospectively made all things subservient to the glory of God; the Lutheran is content with the ‘that’ and enjoys the salvation in which he is, by faith, a participant. From this difference in principle, the dogmatic controversies between them (with respect to the image of God, original sin, the person of Christ, the order of salvation, the sacraments, church government, ethics, etc.) can be easily explained.” Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics

I think I can agree to this, considering I was quite reformed and now somewhere traveling closer to Lutheran. I find Lutheran teachers more entertaining and yet consistent.

 

[twin1954]

Listened to it from start to finish. Very good presentation on Federal headship which i agree with.

What baptist groups don't believe this?

In all honesty most Arminian Baptists that I have encountered have no clue or have never heard of Federal Headship. Many pew sitters know nothing of how substitution works and the implications of Adam's fall.

Federal headship ought to be one of the foundational doctrines taught to believers along with justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ and God's sovereign electing love.

It should be a repeating theme in Sunday Schools and in pulpits. The reason so many are so theologically ignorant is that they have never been taught theology from the Scriptures.

Most folks don't read theology books and have no idea how the Scriptures as a whole fit together.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I appreciate the discussion here. Please forgive me for not responding directly if it's not something I need explained further. And of course I'm not here to debate, nor do I wish to fuel any debates.

I think the flip side of my question is to wonder about how Baptist beliefs have changed over time. I found an article by a Baptist pastor on the subject (I have no idea if he's well known or what his reputation might be - I'd not heard of him before).

It's part two, and I want to read the other parts of the series as well, but this article (and perhaps the rest) deal with sacramentalism in early Baptist theology.

I would appreciate any comments or insights, if anyone has anything to say about it?

Early Baptist Use of the Sacraments

 

[JM]

Reformed Baptists hold to a Reformed and therefore sacramental view and that view is unlike RC'S or EO.

The Lord's Supper: A Means of Grace ? JOETHORN.net

 

[~Anastasia~]

Reformed Baptists hold to a Reformed and therefore sacramental view and that view is unlike RC'S or EO.

The Lord's Supper: A Means of Grace ? JOETHORN.net

Interesting. So you do accept it as a means of grace. That is essentially a sacramental view, I would say. And you also consider it communion with Christ Himself. This we would agree on also.

One of the main points I would have to wonder though - I suppose that according to the article, it would follow that those with insufficient understanding - say the mentally disabled and small children - would thus be unable to receive grace from communion? My guess is that they would never be offered, since one must first be baptized (correct?) and baptism would not be offered either?

May I ask then ... What about baptism? Do you also consider baptism to confer grace?

Thank you for the reply.

 

[mikedsjr]

I wondered if arminianism would struggle would defining this term with a Lutheran or Reformed. person. I can imagine being concerned outright with adding to Scripture without listening to the definition of Scriptural backing.

In all honesty most Arminian Baptists that I have encountered have no clue or have never heard of Federal Headship. Many pew sitters know nothing of how substitution works and the implications of Adam's fall.

Federal headship ought to be one of the foundational doctrines taught to believers along with justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ and God's sovereign electing love.

It should be a repeating theme in Sunday Schools and in pulpits. The reason so many are so theologically ignorant is that they have never been taught theology from the Scriptures.

Most folks don't read theology books and have no idea how the Scriptures as a whole fit together.

 

[JM]

Interesting. So you do accept it as a means of grace. That is essentially a sacramental view, I would say. And you also consider it communion with Christ Himself. This we would agree on also.

One of the main points I would have to wonder though - I suppose that according to the article, it would follow that those with insufficient understanding - say the mentally disabled and small children - would thus be unable to receive grace from communion? My guess is that they would never be offered, since one must first be baptized (correct?) and baptism would not be offered either?

May I ask then ... What about baptism? Do you also consider baptism to confer grace?

Thank you for the reply.

Reformed Baptists would probably say we have Christ equally present in the preaching of the Word and in the celebration of the sacraments or Lord's Supper. Believers feed upon Christ spiritually in the preaching of the word, the Lord's Supper and Baptism. There is no hocus pocus involved, but the classic idea of both word and sacrament.


Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[JM]

Philadelphia Baptist Catechism:

CHAPTER XXVIII

Q. 189. What is Baptism?
A. Baptism is an ordinance of Christ.
Scr. “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I delivered them to you.” — 1 Corinthians 11:2 with Matthew 28:19


CHAPTER XXIX

Q. 190. Why did Christ ordain baptism for believers?
A. For a sign of fellowship with Him in His death, burial, and resurrection unto newness of life.
Scr. “Buried with Him in baptism, wherein also you are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised Him from the dead.” — Colossians 2:12 See Also Galatians 3:27; Romans 6:2-5

Q. 191. Whomaybebaptized?
A. Those who actually profess repentance toward God, faith in Christ Jesus, and obedience to Him.
Scr. “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit… Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:” — Acts 2:38- 41

Q. 192. How are believers to be baptized?
A. They are to be baptized in the water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Scr. “And straightway coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him: — Mark 1:10 See also John 3:23; Matthew 28:19

Q. 193. What is the mode of baptism?
A. Immersion, or dipping of the person wholly under water.
Scr. “And Jesus, when He was baptized, went up straightway out of the water:” — Matthew 3:16

CHAPTER XXX

Q. 194. What is the Lord’s Supper?
A. The Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ.
Scr. “Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of Me. — 1 Corinthians 11:24

Q. 195. What are the benefits of the Lord’s Supper to believers?
A. They are confirmed in their faith, they are spiritually fed, they are reminded of the debt they owe unto Christ, and they are rededicated to His service and worship.
Scr. “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?” — 1 Corinthians 10:16 See also John 6:53-57

Q. 196. What are the elements used in the Lord’s Supper?
A. Bread and wine.
Scr.”Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying Drink ye all of it;” — Matthew 26:26, 27, 29 See also 1 Corinthians 11:23

Q. 197. What do the elements of bread and wine signify?
A. They signify the body and blood of Christ.
Scr. “Take, eat: this is My body,… This cup is the new testament in My blood:” — 1 Corinthians 11:24, 25

Q. 198. Who should partake of the Lord’s Supper?
A. Those who can spiritually receive and feed upon Christ crucified.
Scr. “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” — 1 Corinthians 11:27

Q. 199. Can ungodly persons partake of the Lord’s Supper?
A. Not lawfully, for they are unworthy of the Lord’s table, and cannot feed upon Him spiritually.
Scr. “For he that eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.” — 1 Corinthians 11:29

 

[JM]

To be clear I am saying the Gospel is preached through the sacraments or ordinances. Not that they convey grace in the means (like John Calvin taught) or the work worked (Roman Catholic ex opere operato), but that they convey the Gospel just like preaching the word conveys the Gospel.
Yours in the Lord,
jm