Baptism and Fundamentalists

[Albion]

In the case of children, the fundamental biblical position would be to have them being believing Christians to be baptized.

Let's remember that this issue is not one that is defined one way or the other in the fundamentals.


A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
   a. The doctrine of the Trinity
   b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
   c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
   d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
   e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
   f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
   ​
5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
8. Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

 

[ptomwebster]

Let's remember that this issue is not one that is defined one way or the other in the fundamentals.


A Fundamentalist Christian is a born again believer in Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Maintains an immovable allegiance to the inerrant, infallible, and verbally Inspired Bible;
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;
3. Judges all things by the Bible, and is judged only by the Bible, aka - "Sola Scriptura";
4. Affirms the foundational truths of the historic Christian Faith:
   
   a. The doctrine of the Trinity
   b. The incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, bodily resurrection, ascension into Heaven, and Second Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ
   c. The new birth through regeneration of the Holy Spirit
   d. The resurrection of saints to life eternal
   e. The resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death
   f. The fellowship of the saints, who are the body of Christ;
   ​
5. Practices fidelity to that faith, and endeavors to preach it to every creature;
6. Exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that Faith, compromise with error, and apostasy from the Truth; and
7. Earnestly contends for the Faith once delivered.
8. Therefore, Fundamentalism is a militant orthodoxy with a soulwinning zeal. While Fundamentalists may differ on certain interpretations of Scripture, we join in unity of heart and common purpose for the defense of the Faith and the preaching of the Gospel, without compromise or division.

I think I have said this before somewhere on the Fundamentalist area of this forum; I am a fundamentalist but I do not agree with this definition. It goes beyond the fundamentals of the Faith.

 

[Albion]

I think I have said this before somewhere on the Fundamentalist area of this forum; I am a fundamentalist but I do not agree with this definition. It goes beyond the fundamentals of the Faith.

Well then, if you are a visitor here, shouldn't you at least state that whatever you are posting represents your personal belief as a fundamentalist, not that it's the fundamentalist belief, like this does:

the fundamental biblical position would be....?

 

[ptomwebster]

Well then, if you are a visitor here, shouldn't you at least state that whatever you are posting represents your personal belief as a fundamentalist, not that it's the fundamentalist belief, like this does:

I am not a visitor here, I consider myself a member. It is not "the" fundamentalist belief I am talking about, it's "your" fundamentalist definition that I would make some changes to.

 

[Faith.Man]

I am not a visitor here, I consider myself a member. It is not "the" fundamentalist belief I am talking about, it's "your" fundamentalist definition that I would make some changes to.

What do you differ with?

 

[Albion]

What do you differ with?

I certainly think there are good reasons for baptising infants, or at least that there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Albion]

I am not a visitor here, I consider myself a member.

Well, you said that you disagree with the definition--not of fundamentalism, for that is somewhat dependent upon whose definition is consulted, but with the definition that the forum uses for membership purposes (the one I reproduced).

 

[VCViking]

I certainly think there are good reasons for baptising infants, or at least that there is nothing wrong with it.

Is it found in the Bible?

 

[Albion]

Is it found in the Bible?

Yes, but I'd suggest a new thread if you want to explore that.

 

[ptomwebster]

What do you differ with?

Actually it is seemingly a minor detail but it makes a difference. I need to know which Bible you think is inerrant. Many publishers call their book, "The Bible," but their Bible might have made changes in the text to advance their doctrine, just an example to show what I am talking about. A number of years ago the Readers Digest published their version of the Bible. It had many changes making it unacceptable.

A definition of fundamentalism needs to clarify which Bible is inerrant; "The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts" was part of the Niagara Bible Conference in 1878.

 

[VCViking]

Yes, but I'd suggest a new thread if you want to explore that.

Babies being baptized is found in the Bible? Scripture please and I see no reason why a new thread is needed since this is about baptism.

 

[Albion]

Babies being baptized is found in the Bible? Scripture please and I see no reason why a new thread is needed since this is about baptism.

It's not about infant baptism vs. believer's baptism.

Here, we're dealing with a poll and the question of baptism being necessary to salvation. I'm content to keep it that way rather than shortly be reading that I'm taking something off topic.

 

[Faith.Man]

Actually it is seemingly a minor detail but it makes a difference. I need to know which Bible you think is inerrant. Many publishers call their book, "The Bible," but their Bible might have made changes in the text to advance their doctrine, just an example to show what I am talking about. A number of years ago the Readers Digest published their version of the Bible. It had many changes making it unacceptable.

A definition of fundamentalism needs to clarify which Bible is inerrant; "The verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in the original manuscripts" was part of the Niagara Bible Conference in 1878.

Every Fundamentalist is potentially going to have a different answer to this question. From my perspective, the original word or authorship is inerrant. Everything else is a translation. Because the original words were not written down, we have an oral passing of the words of Moses from one generation to another. Eventially, the word was written down. I don't remember if was Dr. White or Dr. Bock, but they demonstrated how the original authorship could be derived from the texts that we now have at our disposal -- accurate to 99.9+ %, or some percentage close to that. (I don't have my resources handy.) And that there was 0% difference in the ".1 % remaining with respect to faith and morals.

From a personal standpoint, I read many translations (none of which are a paraphrase) including the following: King James Version, New King James Version, New American Standard Bible (both copyright dates), English Standard Version, Amplified Bible, Williams New Testament, Young's Literal Translation, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Internation Version, and a few others. My current hard copy Study Bible is the ESV. I am quite fond of the New American Standard Bible and that is my go-to Bible when I use e-Sword. I'm sorry I can't give you a better answer.

 

[ptomwebster]

It's not about infant baptism vs. believer's baptism.

Here, we're dealing with a poll and the question of baptism being necessary to salvation. I'm content to keep it that way rather than shortly be reading that I'm taking something off topic.

Neither infant nor believer's Baptism is mentioned in the fundamentalist statement.

 

[VCViking]

It's not about infant baptism vs. believer's baptism.

Here, we're dealing with a poll and the question of baptism being necessary to salvation. I'm content to keep it that way rather than shortly be reading that I'm taking something off topic.

Ok...just asking a question in reference to your comment about baptising babies...which is not found in the Bible.

 

[VCViking]

Neither infant nor believer's Baptism is mentioned in the fundamentalist statement.

No, but it is mentioned on the website to which the Fundamentalist SOF came from.

From the Fundamentalist SOF page,
"For more information, see Fundamentalism."

 

[ptomwebster]

No, but it is mentioned on the website to which the Fundamentalist SOF came from.

From the Fundamentalist SOF page,
"For more information, see Fundamentalism."

When did read that document last or have you ever read it. It does NOT talk about Baptism anywhere that I have seen over that last several years. It doesn't even use the word Baptism without it being part of a church name. Read the website, it's NOT there! (unless there is a page I missed over the years)

 

[VCViking]

When did read that document last or have you ever read it. It does NOT talk about Baptism anywhere that I have seen over that last several years. It doesn't even use the word Baptism without it being part of a church name. Read the website, it's NOT there! (unless there is a page I missed over the years)

If you go to the link in the SOF where it says "For more information, see Fundamentalism." you will see baptism discussed in the Articles section. Saw it today in reference to infant baptism.

No need to shout.

 

[ptomwebster]

If you go to the link in the SOF where it says "For more information, see Fundamentalism." you will see baptism discussed in the Articles section. Saw it today in reference to infant baptism.

No need to shout.

I have read the whole document. You need to prove it's there by posting a link to the page it's on or copying and pasting it here. There is no discussion of baptism in the document.

No one is shouting!

 

[Albion]

No, but it is mentioned on the website to which the Fundamentalist SOF came from.

Not in the statement of beliefs. It's just a link to an Article from another organization, that's all.