Baptism and Fundamentalists

[VCViking]

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

It's the same organization the SOF is from so I would say it has some weight.

 

[VCViking]

No one is shouting!

"!" = shouting. So unless you want to talk to me as a brother in Christ with brotherly love, take it else where because I'm not going to be shouted at here from believers. I get enough of that at work from the heathen.

 

[Albion]

It's the same organization the SOF is from so I would say it has some weight.

Not really. Well, all right--a faint connection that only offers additional information from several sources that speak to a general idea. Notice that all the listings omit specifics about baptism.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Niagara Bible Conference in 1878. The Confession of Faith listed fourteen articles[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The "five fundamentals," of [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 1910 General Assembly of the Northern Presbyterian Church[/FONT]


ITIB Committee's Statement



.

 

[VCViking]

Not really.

Really, it is.

 

[ptomwebster]

"!" = shouting. So unless you want to talk to me as a brother in Christ with brotherly love, take it else where because I'm not going to be shouted at here from believers. I get enough of that at work from the heathen.

An exclamation point is not shouting on any forum I have been on in 14 years. The fact is you know you are wrong. Baptism is not part of Fundamentalism. VC, if you don't want to answer or if you can't answer it's OK, I understand.

 

[VCViking]

An exclamation point is not shouting on any forum I have been on in 14 years.

Maybe in internet lingo but in the real world, an exclamation point is used to show intense emotion and/or shouting. When I take a written report from someone and I am quoting someone who is yelling/shouting, guess what I use at the end of the sentence?

 

[VCViking]

There is no discussion of baptism in the document...The fact is you know you are wrong. Baptism is not part of Fundamentalism. VC, if you don't want to answer or if you can't answer it's OK, I understand.

Since you are so nice about it,

http://www.itib.org/articles/contending_for_the_faith/contending_for_the_faith_1-4.html

ITIB -- Contending for the Faith, Chapter 1

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Contending for the Faith by Fred Moritz [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 1:[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] What is Fundamentalism?[/FONT]

"The New Testament teaches only...two symbolic ordinances baptism and the Lord's Supper (Rom. 6:3-5; I Cor. 11:23-34)."

Being that there is no refute of this statement, I guess they believe it is a part of Fundamentalism and are discussing it.



http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_11-2.html

http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_11-2.html

The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation by Mark Sidwell Chapter 11: Roman Catholicism


"The Protestant reformers clearly stated that the Bible alone is the authority in religious matters. The Catholic Church replied that Scripture and tradition are both to be religious authorities. By "tradition" Catholics mean a body of oral teaching given by Christ to the apostles along with the written Scriptures. This oral tradition is the authority for the nonbiblical Catholic teachings rejected by Protestants. Karl Keating, writing to warn Catholics against Fundamentalism, notes that some Catholics looking through the pages of their Bibles "are dismayed to discover there is no clear mention of auricular confession, infant baptism...,"

More discussion on baptism and sounds like infant baptism is not a part of Fundamentalism.


http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_11-2.html

http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_11-2.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What good works must Catholics perform? Chief among their duties is to receive the sacraments. There are seven of these: baptism, confirmation, holy orders (ordination), matrimony, penance, Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), and anointing of the sick (formerly known as extreme unction or last rites). By participating in these sacraments, Catholics believe they receive grace from God. That grace in turn enables them to perform meritorious works to secure their salvation."[/FONT]

Baptism discussed again and not a requirement for salvation.


http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_11-3.html

ITIB Articles -- The Dividing Line, Chapter 11

"On the question of justification, the catechism does not differ from the Council of Trent. The catechism, in fact, quotes Trent on this point: "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man" (1989). "Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith" (1992), the catechism says, and "includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man" (2019)."

Baptism discussed again and showing the error of it beinng a requirement for salvation.

I'm sure there are more but I do not have the time nor the desire to search them out. Feel free to do so yourself.

 

[DeaconDean]

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

For the record:

MANY OTHER CHURCHES PRACTICE IMMERSION — OR DIPPING — THE SUBJECTS OF BAPTISM IN LARGE QUANTITIES OF WATER, AND THESE USUALLY ARE NOT SACRAMENTALISTS

Baptist, Congregational, Plymouth Brethren, and Dunkard Brethren churches, as well as Churches of Christ, the Christian Churches, Fundamentalists, and most Charismatics, all use immersion as their "mode" of baptism and do not practice infant baptism or paedobaptism (also spelled pedobaptism).

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Since you are so nice about it,


Being that there is no refute of this statement, I guess they believe it is a part of Fundamentalism and are discussing it.




More discussion on baptism and sounds like infant baptism is not a part of Fundamentalism.



Baptism discussed again and not a requirement for salvation.




Baptism discussed again and showing the error of it beinng a requirement for salvation.

I'm sure there are more but I do not have the time nor the desire to search them out. Feel free to do so yourself.

Amen!

And Thank You!

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Albion]

For the record:



Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

For the record, some do and some don't. However, the statement you posted does not maintain that they do whatever they do BECAUSE it is essential to whatever the denomination may be, just that the writer thinks it is characteristic of those denominations. But then again, fundamentalism (other than the IFCA) is not a denomination like the Congregationalists, Brethren, etc.

So the statement has little practical meaning anyway.

 

[DeaconDean]

For the record, some do and some don't. However, the statement you posted does not maintain that they do whatever they do BECAUSE it is essential to whatever the denomination may be, just that the writer thinks it is characteristic of those denominations. But then again, fundamentalism (other than the IFCA) is not a denomination like the Congregationalists, Brethren, etc.

So the statement has little practical meaning anyway.

Combined with what I posted, and VC Viking, this is enough evidence as to the theology of Fundamentalists.

If you don't like it, then I suggest you find another area.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Albion]

Combined with what I posted, and VC Viking, this is enough evidence as to the theology of Fundamentalists.

Sorry, but you and VC can define your own beliefs if you care to. The forum has a definition, which is in accord with the historic and universally-accepted definition of fundamentalism, and that's what matters.

 

[DeaconDean]

Sorry, but you and VC can define your own beliefs if you care to. The forum has a definition, which is in accord with the historic and universally-accepted definition of fundamentalism, and that's what matters.

Each "demoniation" or group of Christian believers, base their beliefs on some sort of theology.

As I understand it, Angelicans base some of what they believe on the teachings of the Early Church Fathers:

The faith of Anglicans is founded in the scriptures, the traditions of the apostolic church, the apostolic succession – "historic episcopate" and the early Church Fathers.

The faith of Anglicans is founded in the Scriptures and the Gospels, the traditions of the Apostolic Church, the historical episcopate, the first seven ecumenical councils and the early Church Fathers.

Source

So technically, you should not be posting here as "traditions" have no place in Fundamentalist beliefs.

According to VCViking, who was gracious enough to look up the references, we see:

Since you are so nice about it,

ITIB -- Contending for the Faith, Chapter 1

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Contending for the Faith by Fred Moritz [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 1:[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] What is Fundamentalism?[/FONT]

"The New Testament teaches only...two symbolic ordinances baptism and the Lord's Supper (Rom. 6:3-5; I Cor. 11:23-34)."

​

Being that there is no refute of this statement, I guess they believe it is a part of Fundamentalism and are discussing it.

http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_11-2.html

The Dividing Line: Understanding and Applying Biblical Separation by Mark Sidwell Chapter 11: Roman Catholicism


"The Protestant reformers clearly stated that the Bible alone is the authority in religious matters. The Catholic Church replied that Scripture and tradition are both to be religious authorities. By "tradition" Catholics mean a body of oral teaching given by Christ to the apostles along with the written Scriptures. This oral tradition is the authority for the nonbiblical Catholic teachings rejected by Protestants. Karl Keating, writing to warn Catholics against Fundamentalism, notes that some Catholics looking through the pages of their Bibles "are dismayed to discover there is no clear mention of auricular confession, infant baptism...,"

​

More discussion on baptism and sounds like infant baptism is not a part of Fundamentalism.

http://www.itib.org/articles/dividing_line/dividing_line_11-2.html

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What good works must Catholics perform? Chief among their duties is to receive the sacraments. There are seven of these: baptism, confirmation, holy orders (ordination), matrimony, penance, Eucharist (the Lord's Supper), and anointing of the sick (formerly known as extreme unction or last rites). By participating in these sacraments, Catholics believe they receive grace from God. That grace in turn enables them to perform meritorious works to secure their salvation."[/FONT]

​

Baptism discussed again and not a requirement for salvation.

ITIB Articles -- The Dividing Line, Chapter 11

"On the question of justification, the catechism does not differ from the Council of Trent. The catechism, in fact, quotes Trent on this point: "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man" (1989). "Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith" (1992), the catechism says, and "includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man" (2019)."


​

Baptism discussed again and showing the error of it beinng a requirement for salvation.

So just because it isn't listed in the Fundamentalists SoF, does not disqualify it.

Baptism as a requirement for/of salvation, is not a Fundamentalist belief.

Sorry if that upsets you, but there it is.

And it plainly states in "The Fundamentals" (the handbook for Fundamentalists):

In their rituals they distinctly declare that water baptism is essential to and is productive of the regeneration which Jesus declares must be from heaven. They stumble over, or pervert the words used, and make "born of water" to be baptism, of which nothing is said in the verse or in the chapter, and which the whole tenor of Scripture denies...The grammarians tell us the same thing, and innumerable instances of such usage can be cited from both classic and New Testament Greek. The theologians are explicit in their denial that regeneration can be effected by baptism. They hold to a purely spiritual experience, either before baptism, or after it, and deny that the spiritual birth is effected by the water, no matter how applied.

The Fundamentals, Book III, Regeneration, Conversion, Reformation, by Rev. George W. Lasher, D.D., LL.D.

Also:

The believer is not saved because he is baptized; but, baptized because he is saved. We are saved through faith alone, but not the faith that is alone, because “Faith without works is dead, being alone.” Water baptism is a divinely ordained ordinance whereby the believer witnesses to the world that he died with Christ, and is risen together with Him,” an habitation of God through the Spirit.

He alone, by His Spirit, admits the members of this Church, though ministers may show the door. Till He opens the door no man on earth can open it — neither bishops, nor presbyters, nor convocations, nor synods. Once let a man repent and believe the Gospel, and that moment he becomes a member of this Church. Like the penitent thief, he may have no opportunity of being baptized; but he has that which is far better than any water-baptism — the baptism of the Spirit.​

The Doctrines that Must be Emphasized in Successful Evangelism, by Evangelist L.W. Munhall, M.A., D.D.

So in the handbook for Fundamentalists, everything you have argured against, can be proven.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[VCViking]

The forum has a definition,

Yes and in that definition is this, "For more information, see Fundamentalism," i.e., if you want more information on Fundamentalism, click the link. The forum definition is derived from here, ITIB Home.

Perhaps you should read the "Articles" section to see if you are indeed a Fundamentalist. If you are, then you shouldn't have a problem with what we are saying.

 

[DeaconDean]

In tracing the "Rise of Fundamentalism in America", I ran across this tid-bit:

Most histories of American fundamentalism (including the valuable section in this volume written by sociologist Nancy T. Ammerman) trace its roots to Princeton Theological Seminary in the 1880s. There, Archibald Alexander Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield defended biblical authority against the challenges voiced in the name of science and historical criticism. Warfield's successor, J. Gresham Machen, became a prominent figure in the fundamentalist-modernist debates of the 1920s, having moved by that time to Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia following a dispute with Princeton colleagues to his theological left. The work of Hodge, Warfield and Machen built a solid if narrow intellectual foundation for what is still probably the most cherished doctrine of fundamentalism: the inerrancy of Scripture.

The World of Fundamentalism

Hodge, Hodge, Warfield, Moody, Machen, not bad company.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Albion]

Yes and in that definition is this, "For more information, see Fundamentalism," i.e., if you want more information on Fundamentalism, click the link.

No, it's exactly what it says it is--more information--not a part of the definition.

 

[ptomwebster]

VC

You are totally disregarding subject and object of the sentences you found.

I have been saying all along that baptism is not a part of salvation or fundamentalism. What are you arguing about????

 

[ptomwebster]

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

There are a number of different groups that refer to themselves as fundamentalist. Decisions on baptism are left to individual groups within fundamentalism.

 

[Nova Scotian Boy]

In tracing the "Rise of Fundamentalism in America", I ran across this tid-bit:



The World of Fundamentalism

Hodge, Hodge, Warfield, Moody, Machen, not bad company.

God Bless

Till all are one.

All those names you just mentioned with the exception of Moody were Presbyterians and would of rejected the definition of baptism your trying to put forth. If your trying to keep people who do not hold to a credo-baptist position from posting in this forum you should not be using these names to straightens your argument it does the very opposite. Furthermore they would have held the view that although tradition is not infallible it is incredible valuable.

 

[Minister John]

We're a minority, but it's not that bad, John

Sounds interesting to me, is there somewhere that I can learn more about individuals such as yourself?