Are Baptists Gnostics?

[jellybean99]

People on this thread seem to have a genuine interest in Gnosticism and how to differentiate their faith from that of Gnostics. While Gnosticism could be described as a dualistic, esoteric, human endeavor towards godliness, some might appreciate a more detailed explanation.
Definition of Gnosticism

My interest in this thread was piqued by the notion of labeling Baptists Gnostics. They've been called legalists, fundamentalists, stoics, Bible-thumpers, loveless, anal-retentive, and other things I can't mention on this forum, but Gnostics?!?

What you see is what you get. Drop by one of their churches one Sunday; everyone's welcome (welcome as the rest of the porcupine family--don't get too close). They use both kinds of Bibles; The King James Version and the New King James Version (if you must).

Copies of their belief statement are neatly typed and placed in the front foyer for newcomers to read. There's no secret doctrines, no second testimonies and people will tell you up-front what they believe at adult Sunday School or at Bible study (where legally permitted in the Homeland).

Like every other religion and denomination, Baptists have their rite of passage (Baptism). The only thing that truly distinguishes the Christian faith from the Gnostics' is that Gnostics are called in while Christians are called out (the ekklesia).

In one's spiritual walk, you either hear the voice of Christ or die trying. May your path lead you to salvation and redemption.

 

[SummaScriptura]

A Landmarkian Baptist believes there are no valid churches other than Baptist ones. Given that assumption, one can understand the perspective of the author of the "Trail of Blood": ie, let's proove there have always been valid churches (read: Baptist) lest we be guilty of claiming the Church did not prevail against the gates of hell.

Reading your quote, I think the author of "Trail of Blood" is not saying the gnostics were Baptists. He writes, "during the period that we are now passing through the persecuted were called by many and varied names"; in other words the Baptists were falsely called "gnostics".

The Landmarkian ideology is pretty rare, I think. I've known only one Landmarkian Baptist in my lifetime and he did not belong to a Landmarkian church.

But kudos to the original poster! Way to go! on prepetuating that most common of all cliched, false assumptions about Baptists that "they all must believe the same things". No two Baptists I know agree on much.

If there are any Baptist distinctives upon which we all agree, they are probably these:

1. Credo-baptism by immersion
2. The priesthood of every believer
3. The autonomy of the local church

Numbers 2 and 3 above are the reasons, I think, that there is so much disagreement among Baptists on a plethora of ideas.

 

[Rhamiel]

i was not trying to spread any wrong beliefs, i really did think this was a common baptist idea, thank you for correcting me

 

[SummaScriptura]

i was not trying to spread any wrong beliefs, i really did think this was a common baptist idea, thank you for correcting me

I was speaking of the original poster, not you!

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

You mean like Apostolic Succession? People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Except Apostolic Succession is advanced by people whose writings we consider Scripture and in the first couple centuries of the Church and there's at least little evidence that the Catholic Church in the 21st century is a substantially different body than the Catholic Church in the 2nd century.

For example, I used this passage in another article today. It is from St. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies", written in AD 180. Irenaeus was the student of Polycarp, who was the student of John.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

So if there was a time when Apostolic Succession was "invented", it would have had to been very early. Contrary to the Landmarkist view, there is no evidence that there has been a parallel Church that has existed since the Apostles following Protestant principles (can we even define what Protestant principles are, apart from riotousness? [cf. Jude 4])

Isn't this the Babylonian god Marduk?

No, Marduk was not a dragon, though he had a dragon named Mushussu, but that dragon did not have wings but rather was like a horned snake with legs.

(what is the photo a picture of, anyway? it is unclear but it appears to be an amphiptere -- two wings but no legs, used in heraldry)

 

[ebia]

Except Apostolic Succession is advanced by people whose writings we consider Scripture

eh?

 

[Rhamiel]

large papal crest in the Vatican Museum is where the picture of the dragon came from, i think that is it, i am trying to find a non-crazy referance lol

 

[Tangible]

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=29318

More proof that 'Baptist' can have a very wide range of meaning.

 

[SummaScriptura]

More proof:

 

[Hentenza]

People on this thread seem to have a genuine interest in Gnosticism and how to differentiate their faith from that of Gnostics. While Gnosticism could be described as a dualistic, esoteric, human endeavor towards godliness, some might appreciate a more detailed explanation.
Definition of Gnosticism

Don't care about gnostism. It is heretical.

My interest in this thread was piqued by the notion of labeling Baptists Gnostics. They've been called legalists, fundamentalists, stoics, Bible-thumpers, loveless, anal-retentive, and other things I can't mention on this forum, but Gnostics?!?

Yes, those from the liberal churches do call us names. Sticks and stones........

What you see is what you get. Drop by one of their churches one Sunday; everyone's welcome (welcome as the rest of the porcupine family--don't get too close). They use both kinds of Bibles; The King James Version and the New King James Version (if you must).

Nah!! I've never seen that in a Baptist church and furthermore, mainstream Baptists use a range of bibles. I own 7 different translations. I do prefer to study from the NASB or the NKJV simply because this translations are not as paraphrased as others.

Copies of their belief statement are neatly typed and placed in the front foyer for newcomers to read. There's no secret doctrines, no second testimonies and people will tell you up-front what they believe at adult Sunday School or at Bible study (where legally permitted in the Homeland).

Nope. Don't have a belief statement in my church's foyer. Do have several testimonies by believers in our congregation posted throughout our church. Sunday bible school is for leaning the bible and for fellowship. I, as a bible study teacher, encourage my students to express their thoughts and teach from all aspects of scripture.

Legally permitted in the Homeland? Don't know what this means.

Like every other religion and denomination, Baptists have their rite of passage (Baptism). The only thing that truly distinguishes the Christian faith from the Gnostics' is that Gnostics are called in while Christians are called out (the ekklesia).

Gnostics are not Christians. There is no comparison between them and Christianity. Anyone can have an "assembly" but only Christians can have a Christian "assembly".

In one's spiritual walk, you either hear the voice of Christ or die trying. May your path lead you to salvation and redemption.

Yes, hearing the vioce of Christ is part of the Christian spiritual walk. May your path lead you to salvation and redemption.

 

[jckstraw72]

That's not what osas is. You grossly misunderstand.

Here is a simple explaination:

God has elected a people to salvation. People who are one of that number will be exposed to the gospel at some point in their lives and decide to trust Jesus by the grace of God. When they have saving faith they really believe that Jesus Christ is who he says he is and will do what he says he will do. That saving faith is the primary evidence that God has elected them to salvation. When they come to a realization of their adoption into the family of God they are then called saved, because they know they are saved because they really do trust Jesus. God always gets what he wants so all of his elect will be with him in glory forever thanks to his grace given to them. He is trustworthy.

John wrote many things under the inspiration of God so that God's people would know they have salvation:

1 John 5:13 KJV
[13] These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

i was referring to the version of OSAS that i used to ascribe to, but youre right, of course there are other understandings.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

large papal crest in the Vatican Museum is where the picture of the dragon came from, i think that is it, i am trying to find a non-crazy referance lol

Googling for that, I also found this picture:

The above papal medal of Pope Gregory XIII, designed by L Parm, is dated 1582, marking the year of the Gregorian calendar reform. On the reverse of the medal is a winged dragon / serpent encircling a ram's head. As previously mentioned, the dragon is the biblical symbol of Satan (Rev 12:9). The serpent that is chasing or devouring its tail is called Ouroboros, Uroboros, or Oureboros. The ram's head is also a satanic symbol, and is frequently associated with the Egyptian deities, such as the god Amon (Amoun, Ammun, Ammon), the king of all gods, who was also regarded as the sun god, and Khnum, who created mankind on his potter's wheel from the mud of the Nile.

The intended symbolic meaning, however, is undoubtedly that of Aries the Ram, the first sign of the Zodiac, which symbolizes the Vernal / Spring Equinox, and Draco / Drako (or Ouroboros) the serpent depicting a cyclical returning. Pope Gregory XIII had modified the calendar specifically so that the Vernal Equinox would remain relatively constant, on or about March 21st, which is the beginning of the Zodiacal year, when the Sun crosses the Equator and enters the astrological sign of Aries. This had the desired result of returning Easter to the time specified by the Nicene Council (325 A.D.). Source.

The ram may represent satan, or evil:

(I liked "Advance and Vanquish" better)

or, Amon-Ra:

or, the astrological sign of Aries:

But it seems the most obvious is none of those (especially not the first or second), but rather the ram in the thicket, which is a commonly-used type of Christ.

It seems to me that sometimes these people are willfully blind.

---

Take another image -- the serpent. Now, we primarily associate the serpent with evil and satan in the Garden of Eden. But God turned Moses' rod into a serpent at the Burning Bush and again turned Aaron's rod into a serpent who devoured the other serpents of the pagans. When the Israelites were attacked by "fiery serpents", God told Moses to build a bronze serpent and put it on a pole, so that everyone who looked upon it would be saved. So thus the serpent, as associated with satan, is evil; but the serpent, as associated with Christ, is good.

After all, everything is undone by its antithesis -- Christ was the Second Adam, Mary was the Second Eve, Christ was the Serpent on the Cross who saved mankind fro the serpent in the Garden.

Imagery is complex.

(At the Anglican parish of St Margaret, Wetton, Staffordshire, England)

 

[Secundulus]

What you see is what you get. Drop by one of their churches one Sunday; everyone's welcome (welcome as the rest of the porcupine family--don't get too close). They use both kinds of Bibles; The King James Version and the New King James Version (if you must).

Lots of different kinds of Baptists. I am only familiar with one kind, the Southern Baptists. They are not really as you describe.

While my disclaimer is that I believe they are mistaken in a few things, their preachers are amongst the most theologically educated around.

I listen to Albert Mohler's Podcast often. He is the President of the Southern Baptist theological Seminary. In a recent Podcast he recommended the NASB95 as the best bible for study since the King James has become hard for many modern people to understand.

 

[SummaScriptura]

I'm a GGBTS grad.

I think I've finally settled down with the ESV, the NASB, the AMP, the RSV and, oh yeah, the KJV in last place. Oh and sometimes the NRSV for certain deuterocanonical books and the NETS and the SAAS for the Septuagint.

 

[Secundulus]

I'm a GGBTS grad.

I think I've finally settled down with the ESV, the NASB, the AMP, the RSV and, oh yeah, the KJV in last place. Oh and sometimes the NRSV for certain deuterocanonical books and the NETS and the SAAS for the Septuagint.

I like the ESV. I mostly use the NASB95 (because several Southern Baptist Preachers recommended it to me (LOL) and I have found it to be an excellent translation)

As an old school Anglican, KJV only for liturgy and Coverdale's translation (The Great Bible, 1539) for Psalms.

Nobody to this date has translated the Psalms better than Coverdale. I think he, more than anyone else, maintained the poetry present in the original Hebrew when he translated into English.

 

[SummaScriptura]

For nearly 30 years I neither recommended nor read from nor preached from anything other than the NASB. Then I got switched to the ESV a few years ago. I could never commit the NASB to memory, and that is a great liability.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

For nearly 30 years I neither recommended nor read from nor preached from anything other than the NASB. Then I got switched to the ESV a few years ago. I could never commit the NASB to memory, and that is a great liability.

The NASB is one of the poorest translations [along with the KJperV in my humble view]

 

[SummaScriptura]

OSAS, to which I do not subscribe, has no gnostic characteristics to it and the OP needs to point out specifically why he thinks it is gnostic in character. Just stating it, does not make it so.

 

[bbbbbbb]

OSAS, to which I do not subscribe, has no gnostic characteristics to it and the OP needs to point out specifically why he thinks it is gnostic in character. Just stating it, does not make it so.

I agree and found the OP to be equally perplexing.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Yes, we Baptists are gnostics.

Tonight, in fact, at my religion, we're going to have an initiatory rite in which the novitiates are submerged under a deluge of blood from a bull which will be sacrified.

Wanna come?