Historic Baptist Confession compared to Luther?

[~Anastasia~]

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

I see ... At least I think I do.

But if that is so, then where is the benefit of either Baptism or Communion? Are they then ONLY a matter of obedience? In that case, aren't they exactly the same as following any commandment, so what separates them even as being an ordinance to be listed apart from "Thou shalt not kill"?

I hope that question makes sense?

It seems that where this is taking us, overall, is that salvation is tied completely to believing the right thing, and nothing else at all (acknowledging of course Christ's sacrifice and God's grace - I'm not trying to cut that out by any means). Would you say that is true?

Thank you for your reply.

 

[JM]

Gospel faith is about believing in Jesus Christ and trusting Him alone for salvation. It's about belief in Jesus Christ.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Gospel faith is about believing in Jesus Christ and trusting Him alone for salvation. It's about belief in Jesus Christ.

I understand. But what is the purpose or benefit, if any, of baptism or communion in that case?

Please forgive me - I'm not trying to be argumentative. I only want to make sure that I understand.

 

[JM]

I don't find your questions argumentative at all. The ordinances build our faith in the finished work of Christ which is there benefit.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

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!

Only two ordinances, and only one of them is an "ism". They are both commanded by Jesus. Jesus was baptized by John, it was submersion. Jesus commanded His followers to go into the world and preach the gospel, making disciples and baptizing them. It's an act of obedience picturing our identification with the Lord in His death , burial, and resurrection. He wants us to do this as a public confession of our faith in front of others after we receive Him as our Savior. He wants us to take communion in remembrance of Him, showing our unity with Him. We figuratively partake of His blood while in reality He lives in us and we supposedly are willing to obey Him even if we must be persecuted and suffer the same as He did for us. His body was broken for us and we identify with Him in figuratively unifying our bodies with His by figuratively eating His flesh. It's about obedience and being willing to suffer with Him, for Him, by Him, through Him, in Him, for His glory knowing He will glorify Himself in us and freely give us all things in heaven as joint heirs with Him, sons of God adopted by the price of the blood of God the Son.

I don't know what goes on in a lot of churches, but in the church I attend and all of the Baptist churches I have ever been involved with and that is probably between 50 and 100, we baptize publicly by submersion, and the one performing the Baptism says, as he lets the person being baptized fall backwards into the water "buried in the likness of His death", and then as he lifts the subject out of the water he says "and raised to walk in newness of life". I was baptized in front of 50 or so people in a lake at a public beach. It always brings tears to my eyes when I watch a baptism, such a beautiful picture of what the Lord did for me and I do so love to see other people united with my Savior in His death, burial, and resurrection after they have received Him by faith and He has become their life.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

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?

Pre trib rapture and millennial reign of Christ was taught by the apostles. People come up with different theories which require twisting and ignoring passages that plainly teach the rapture of the church before the seven year tribulation begins with 3.5 years of peace before the false peace treaty starting the 7 year tribulation period begins. Other theories started after the apostles were used by God to give us His word.. I can show you these things pretty easily in the Bible. Contradictory theories are many and always complicating. The pre trip rapture is simple and clear in the Bible, as is the millennial reign of Christ after the rapture. I will be happy to show you these things but I would prefer to do in in private conversation rather than in the thread because of the many who are schooled in various confusing doctrines.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I see ... At least I think I do.

But if that is so, then where is the benefit of either Baptism or Communion? Are they then ONLY a matter of obedience? In that case, aren't they exactly the same as following any commandment, so what separates them even as being an ordinance to be listed apart from "Thou shalt not kill"?

I hope that question makes sense?


Jesus pleaded many times with people for them to believe Him, tenderly and compassionately reasoning and almost begging them to believe Him. For those who proudly opposed Him, he strongly rebuked them, naming their sins and calling them names according to their sins....."children of Hell" "blind leaders of the blind" "thieves" and such things. The crucified Him because He told them the truth about their sin, and they were afraid of losing control of their religion; they were jealous and they hated Him for telling them the truth which they rejected and refused to believe. When He said "I am the way, the truth, and the life" he was excluding all others from being the way, or the truth, or the life and He still does exclude them all. He is the only Savior and the only Judge over every person who has ever lived. People who will not believe Him cannot be saved. He is the Truth and if they will not agree to and accept the Truth they cannot be saved.
It seems that where this is taking us, overall, is that salvation is tied completely to believing the right thing, and nothing else at all (acknowledging of course Christ's sacrifice and God's grace - I'm not trying to cut that out by any means). Would you say that is true?

Thank you for your reply.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Baptism and communion are two direct commandments of the Lord for His church. They are commands for the new covenant. "Thou shalt not kill" is still God's law and has not changed. Jesus gave us baptism and communion as pictures of His sacrifice for us to identify with Him as God's Lamb who paid for our crimes of breaking His law of which "Thou shalt not Kill is a part"

John's baptism unto repentance was a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ the same as when we baptize others today. Since Christ's work is complete, the baptism now pictrures His finished. It's the same picture for different times before and after the Lord's death with the same meaning. The repentance shown in John's Baptism had the same implication of walking in newness of life. Christ completed that work and now the Baptism is clearly picturing His resurrection. I believe John the Baptist was the only person alive before the resurrection of Christ who understood that Jesus was going to die for our sins and rise from the dead...but I can't prove that since they cut off John's head before he could say it. John's baptism unto repentance pictured the resurrection of Christ which was to come. It's a beautiful thing, and most Baptists today, as far as I know, still do it the same way John the Baptist did it when he baptized Jesus Christ. That's why a real Baptist like myself is happy to be called and call himself a Baptist no matter how much society tries to imply the name is derogatory. I'll die as a Baptist. It was good enough for John the Baptist and it's good enough for me.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

Baptism and communion are two direct commandments of the Lord for His church. They are commands for the new covenant. "Thou shalt not kill" is still God's law and has not changed. Jesus gave us baptism and communion as pictures of His sacrifice for us to identify with Him as God's Lamb who paid for our crimes of breaking His law of which "Thou shalt not Kill is a part"

John's baptism unto repentance was a picture of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ the same as when we baptize others today. Since Christ's work is complete, the baptism now pictrures His finished. It's the same picture for different times before and after the Lord's death with the same meaning. The repentance shown in John's Baptism had the same implication of walking in newness of life. Christ completed that work and now the Baptism is clearly picturing His resurrection. I believe John the Baptist was the only person alive before the resurrection of Christ who understood that Jesus was going to die for our sins and rise from the dead...but I can't prove that since they cut off John's head before he could say it. John's baptism unto repentance pictured the resurrection of Christ which was to come. It's a beautiful thing, and most Baptists today, as far as I know, still do it the same way John the Baptist did it when he baptized Jesus Christ. That's why a real Baptist like myself is happy to be called and call himself a Baptist no matter how much society tries to imply the name is derogatory. I'll die as a Baptist. It was good enough for John the Baptist and it's good enough for me.

Protestant leaders who rebelled against the Catholicism which surrounded and oppressed them at the end of the dark ages did great things in believing the word of God over the dictates of the Vatican and they changed history around the world, but there was always a group of believers who held the faith of the apostles somewhere in the world sequestered by God protecting and preserving His word and keeping His faith while Catholicism tried to dominate, control, and monopolize Christianity. Independent Fundamental Baptists trace their roots back to those people, who were ordained by the apostles and then by those who succeeded those directly ordained by the apostles. Polycarp was the successor of the apostle John after John was unsuccessfully executed and then exiled to the Isle of Patmos where God gave Him the Revelation of Jesus Christ. The record of those ordained and commissioned by the apostles is available in historical documents but those historical accounts are neglected, denied, or ignored by most modern historians and church leaders. Baptists ( most Independent fundamental at least) believe the early church as ordered by the apostles under our Lords commission was a Baptist church though they were only called Christians. We have adopted and chosen the name Baptist because we believe most accurately describes what the Lord ordained His church to be in the world. It is protestants who are much like Baptists, not Baptists who were born out of Protestantism. Independent Fundamental Baptists like myself consider ourselves to not be Protestants, not Calvinist, not Arminian, not Lutheran, not Wesleyan, none of that. Just Baptists like John the Baptist, trying to tell people to repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, the message of John repeated by Jesus Christ after He was baptized by John, trying to help people's hearts be prepared to receive the Savior and be saved, to be born again by the Spirit of God for Jesus Christ to become and be their eternal life now and forever Amen.

 

[JM]

Fundamentalists find their theological roots no later than the 19th century. They are a reactionary movement formed against Liberal European theology. The Gospel Hall Brethren held Bible Conferences in North America where they taught Fundentalism and Dispensationalism.

Fundamentalism tends to be anti-intellectual, it lacks historical perspective, and focused in America. Fundies are overwhelming Arminian but, since they refuse to accept historical facts, will not acknowledge it.

I think I'll now out now.

Yours in The Lord,

JM

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks so much everyone.

I appreciate all the answers. I'm not keeping up very well since they updated the forum - sometimes it works well enough for me, sometimes not.

There are certain things I'd like to discuss more, but I can't find a way to ask my questions without coming off as debating, and your community forum clearly isn't the place for that. I wouldn't want to abuse your kindness.

Please know that I have appreciated your efforts. God be with you all!