- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Originally posted 5th August 2010, 12:15 AM
God Bless
Till all are one.
In a discussion recently, a member of this area condemned me because they can't, could not, or would not, understand how a person can hold certain beliefs while at the same time rejecting certain beliefs also.
Let me explain.
I believe that John Calvin is correct in his teachings in "The Institutes of Christian Religion" except for his chapters which deal with the "sacraments" and "baptism". I disagree in that there is grace given by participating in communion, and I also disagree with his position on paedobaptism.
I can agree to and agree with the teachings associated with the T.U.L.I.P. out line.
I have a very good knowledge of the doctrines concerning "predestination and election" as far as Reformed Theology teaches, and I agree with it.
I have a very good knowledge of the doctrines concerning being declared "righteous" and "justification". And for the most part, Baptists agree with the Reformed position.
I have a very good knowledge of the doctrines concerning "sanctification" and "holiness".
I have a very, very, good knowledge of, understand, and agree with the Baptist and the Reformed position on salvation and regeneration.
I do not agree with the Reformed position in regards to the authority of Synods and councils.
The Reformed Westminster Confession of Faith said in its article titled "The Civil Magistrate," "...he hath authority and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered and observed for the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever transacted in them be according to the mind of God..." (Wesminister Confession of Faith of 1642, Chapter 23, Of the Civil Magistrate)
Baptists believe with the New Testament that the civil magistrate has no right to require a form of religion for us or to punish us for not following the religion he requires. Baptists believe that Jesus Christ is Lord of the church and Lord of the state, but that he does not rule the state through the church nor the church through the state. We believe that the state can never compel men to believe the truth. Only the Holy Spirits quickening work can compel men to do this. Baptists believe that Christians are citizens of two realms: an earthly realm which is ruled over by man, for both the saved and the unsaved, and a heavenly kingdom ruled by the Lord Jesus Christ, We base this partly on the words of our Lord in Matthew 22:17 and 21. For Baptists the church and the world are basically separate and antagonistic to each other. Baptists have no thought and no desire for uniting the two, and Baptists have never been the state religion anywhere.Lawrence Justice, Are Baptists Reformed?
Source
I agree with what dispensationalists teach as far as there have dispensations of time in history. And I also believe in a "rapture" where all Christians, Jew and Gentile, will be caught up before the gret tribulation.
But at the same time, I disagree with the position of Dispensationists in that God has two plans of salvation; one involving the Gentiles in this current dispensation, and one for Jews during the millennium.
I ally myself to no creed or confession. I do agree that they are "tools" as to what what we (Baptists) believe, but I will declare no oath to them.
Dr. Jimmy Draper wrote:
A Creed is not a revelation of divine truth; it is not a rule of faith and practice,
but it is a help in both. Creeds have no authority over conscience.
Ernest Reisinger wrote:
So as far as creeds are concerned, I will never be made to affirm, or swear by any "creed or confession".One of the dangers of Creeds and Confessions is using them to bind the conscience. They must never be used to bind the conscience. They can only bind the conscience so far as they are biblical, and they bind only those who voluntarily subscribe to them.
Another danger is allowing Creeds to usurp the place of authority. We do not worship the Creeds. The Bible is our final authority and standard, and it alone. By it we must prove all things. We must not exalt the Creeds above, or equal to the Bible. Creeds are the products of men. However, the respected Creeds are the products of many holy, competent, and seasoned men. The Creeds have proved a safeguard for Christians. They are not independent assertions of truth. They are derived from, and subordinate to, the Bible as the only source and standard of Christian authority.
The Creeds themselves warn against the danger of Creeds. "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men as such are in anything contrary to His word or not contained in it. So that to believe such doctrines, or obey such commands out of conscience is to betray true liberty of conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith and absolute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience and reason also." (Philadelphia Confession of Faith, 1742, Chapter 21, part 2).
When it comes to Confessions as a summary of what we believe and where it is found, I agree to three (4):
The Philadelphia Baptist Confession of 1742, The New Hampshire Confession of Faith of 1833, and the Abstract of Principles, The Niagara Conference of 1879.
So, I can believe what 95% of what Reformed Theology and John Calvin teaches, without agreeing to 100% and still call myself a Calvinist.
I can agree to some of what dispensationalism teaches without agreeing to all of what dispeansationalist teach. After all, even Paul uses that word (dispensation; Eph. 3:2).
But according to some, if I agree to one point of dispensationalism, there is no way that I can understand what Reformed theology teaches and because I hold to a belief in a "rapture", that automatically makes me a dispensationalist.
For the most part, what I believe is spelled out above.
If you do not agree with me, fine.
If you start a thread, and I input in it, and you do not want me to put in my two cents worth, then tell me and I'll butt out.
I can call myself a Calvinist and not agree to everything John Calvin taught.
I can agree with some of dispensational teachings while also rejecting other parts and not be a dispensationalist.
I just want you to know where I stand and what I believe.
God Bless
Till all are one.