Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[Anoetos]

What ? Not only were they not baptist to begin with they were infidels. Real baptists adhere to a regenerate church membership, and are quickened converted believers. Sad all majority of modern baptists do for church membership today is ask if they repeated a sinners prayer. Majority of modern baptists are baptists in name only, with very little in common with historic baptists.

Sorry to sidetrack, but how do you know if a person is regenerate? Not, how do they know, rather, how would you, as in, another person, know?

 

[the particular baptist]

Sorry to sidetrack, but how do you know if a person is regenerate? Not, how do they know, rather, how would you, as in, another person, know?

Idealy, when a person is desirous of joining a sovereign grace baptist church the congregation listens to the person recount the work of the grace of God in their lives. If the congregation is satisfied that indeed God had begun a work in that persons life they are then admitted into the membership.

 

[Anoetos]

Idealy, when a person is desirous of joining a sovereign grace baptist church the congregation listens to the person recount the work of the grace of God in their lives. If the congregation is satisfied that indeed God had begun a work in that persons life they are then admitted into the membership.

Not much difference with us except that the court is the elders.

 

[JasonLibertad]

Thank you Particular Baptist for the history on our Baptist brethren by Spurgeon. As I understand the schisms that have occurred in the past centuries I also like to believe that true believers can move forward from the errors of our forefathers past. To hold to the Doctrines of Grace and traditional Baptists roots is what we mean by the name of Reformed Baptist. Just as you have stated that many in the modern day Baptist denominations have not continued in the footsteps of our Historic or Particular Baptist forefathers, gives us another reason to set ourselves apart from those that do not preach the whole truth but use the name Baptist. You can say that it is an issue of semantics more than trying to mesh the two words "Reformed" and "Baptist" as used in the past, but to unite them as not to cause questions as to what we believe.

Jason,

Like BB, I am interested in knowing more. Can you tell us what forum you are speaking about?

Brother AMR it was the board that you stated in an earlier post and after rereading the denial response from the forum, they gave three reasons why my application could be denied. I believed that I was denied because of number 3 but it may have been because I am not a member of my church as of yet (although I don't know how they would know that). After rereading the rules of application it does say that if you are not a member of a church you need not apply (I must have missed that). I do apologize for ranting about this as I should have kept it to myself but I was very excited to fellowship with that forum as well.

Here is the response from them:
There are a few reasons why your rejection may not be on Confessional grounds and you may wish to consider re-applying. First, sometimes the rejection is on the basis that the Biography was insufficient to determine if you meet the Board requirements. As an example, if you chose "Other" for your Confession and did not include detailed information that gave explanation then your application is rejected immediately. Secondly, although we state that we're interested in information regarding Confessional subscription in the Biography, some people use the massive 2000 character limit to tell their life story. These stories are interesting but if you never get around to convincing us that you are, in fact, Reformed then we cannot approve your application. Third, some cases involve those who claim to subscribe to a paedobaptist Confession but attend a credobaptist Church. Finally, some cases have a Confession selected but give little information as to why the individual is inv
olved in a non-Reformed denomination or parachurch organization.

We are very careful to be explicit both in our rules and in the application what we are looking for and simply don't have the time, given volume of applications received, to interact on applications if they do not pass muster. We've worked hard at making the application very straightforward so we are able to approve/reject quickly given our limited time. We hope you understand.

You are welcome to re-apply in the future if your Church membership or confessional alignment makes you eligible for participation. You may also re-apply if you believe the reason why your application was rejected is because you failed to carefully read the application form as you were filling it out.

 

[Faith.Man]

First of all to the mods: if what I am about to write is in some way against the rules of this forum, please remove this thread and I apologize in advance.

I tried to join another forum whose name I will not give but it does hold to the reformed Calvinistic doctrines and I was denied membership because of my Credobaptist beliefs. I would like to know from those of you that hold to the Paedobaptist belief if any of you believe that the doctrine of Credobaptist is a heresy and if it is so important to ones theology that it is a concern to divide?

I have never seen it as a concern to disassociate one whe believes the other and see it as something that should not divide.

I've just come across your thread and haven't read any of the other replies yet. In one of the many moments I was fed up with CF, I too tried to join another Reformation based, Calvinistic forum. I too was denied membership because I would not name a creed I adhered to. I believe in the five solas and take the bible as literal truth. I see the creeds as being explanations or summaries of biblical positions, but do not hold any creed up to the standard of the bible itself. That doesn't mean I do not find them truthful, it just means they are of a lower standard than the bible.

 

[the particular baptist]

Jason, why do you want to be a part of a forum where youre not wanted unless you jump through hoops ?

 

[heymikey80]

Yeah, no telling.

In general what happens within narrowly-defined discussion forums: a very narrow range of subjects and opinions gets discussed. They may have certain representatives that you value highly for their opinions; but just be aware that they're not addressing rival opinions directly in their forums. Sometimes that's good. Sometimes not.

I've had similar problems joining credobaptist churches, so I only have a sympathy of, "Yeah, people do that both ways."

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Right. Names ? Calvin for one, he persecuted anabaptists.

Oh did he now, would you be so kind as to provide names and sources?

Would you like to look up what kind of words he used to describe people who practice baptism by immersion upon a proffesion of faith?

The only person with whom I am familar with, in which John Calvin is said to have been involved in putting to death is Michael Servetus. From what I understand, Servetus would not back down or back off, even when warned, and from what I understand, Servetus was no Anabaptist.

Would you like to see what he thinks should be done with them ?

Sure, but it does not mean I agree. It would be an error to think that Calvinists agree 100% with everything John Calvin said, did, or wrote. John Calvin wrestled with his sinful nature that same as you and I. He struggled, and lived in a very different time. In Geneva, Church and state were one. Further, John Calvin did not act as sole authority, in fact, a council booted him out of Geneva at one point. What amazes me the most about John Calvin, is the extensiveness of his volumes upon volumes of writings despite all of his civil responsibilities. No ball point pen, nor light bulb, would be enough to discourage me.

There many more names. The reformers that were sympathetic to the anabaptists were in the very tiny minority. The rest treated them no different than the papists. Do your own research. Start with baptist martyrologies.

Well, since you made the claims, I had hoped you would be so kind as to support them. I think, rather than research, I'll take unsupported claims for what they are, and move on...

It is not subjective. Papists, EO's, were state churches; religion + politics = antichrist. Church Of Christ are Cambellites no more than 100 years old. Baptists have a spiritual kinship with free churches that taught believers baptism and free grace, throughout the centuries, persecuted by papists and protestants alike. This is not subjective. There indeed is a line to be drawn between various groups going by various names with the same spiritual principles, believers baptism and free grace, throughout the last 20 centuries.

I am sorry if what I said came off that way, but I never said it was subjective, nor did I intend to imply. Also, part of my response which you didn't put in quotations, provides my answer....where I mention born again Christians. Now I would like to make another point because of all the talk about "persecution". That Christians have always been persecuted does not in any way shape or form demonstrate the truthfulness of their beliefs. Heretics, like those that deny central doctrine, major tenants of Christianity have also suffered much persecution throughout history, does their persecution demonstrate the truthfulness of their beliefs? Of course not. So I would like to know where you are going with this, what is your point? Is the name Thomas Müntzer one of those various names? Interesting article about him here.

Im aware of will worshiping baptists and their "another gospel". My point has been the spiritual kinship of free churches throughout the last 2000 years teaching the same spiritual principles, believers baptism and free grace.

Will worshipping? Wow, I've never heard it put that way, with such strong language. Somehow I think those brethren would not quite see it that way, even if, I believe they are inconsistant in their interpretation, thinking, and understanding of Scripture. Will worshipping, I'll have to remember that one as a stumper.

I said apostolic churches, which means New Testament Churches. The free churches over the last 2000 years were persecuted by papists and later protestants for adhering to the new testament church model. Read the martyrologies.

I think I'll read the Bible instead, thank you.

What ? Not only were they not baptist to begin with they were infidels. Real baptists adhere to a regenerate church membership, and are quickened converted believers. Sad all majority of modern baptists do for church membership today is ask if they repeated a sinners prayer. Majority of modern baptists are baptists in name only, with very little in common with historic baptists.

What does earthly Church membership have to do with Heavenly regeneration? I will repeat what I said earlier in the previous post but in different terms. God does not save denominations, He saves individuals, He is a personal God, and His salvation is personal. Even IF the Anabaptists were the true successors of the apostles, it does not follow their teachings are also infallible, any more than the Early Church Fathers (which is not to deny all authority, just saying Sola Scriptura). I wonder how many believers have been converted on their deathbed, without any Church membership, without so much as a cup of water to be baptized with? Then, I think about the thief on the cross, next to Jesus, and those comforting words...

 

[Anoetos]

Since we're on the subject, this idea that Baptists were not products of the Reformation and that they predated it is mythical.

Lots of churches have apocryphal stories about their origins though.

Roman Catholics like to pretend Peter was the first Pope, for example.

 

[msortwell]

Originally Posted by Apologetic_Warrior . . .

Have Baptists never persecuted Baptists in some manner or form?

Ya know - I honestly can't think of a time that they have... I really can't. Anyone know of any examples of this?

Absolutely! Walk into the majority of Fundamental (and many other) Baptist churches and declare yourself to be a "Reformed Baptist," explain to them what you mean by "Reformed Baptist," and you will generally experience rejection.

I was once a member of a Southern Baptist Church that, after a failed attempt a disciplining members (due solely to their Calvinist beliefs), closed its doors, rather than allow the influence its Calvinistic members to continue to grow. It's not the severe persecution some of our brethren have faced, but it was certainly ugly.

 

[msortwell]

I find the term "Reformed Baptist" useful. As I understand the term (as it described me for several years), it informs people that the Baptist under consideration: 1) Holds to the 5 Points of Calvinism, 2) is NOT a dispensationalist, 3) holds to a high view of the continuity of God's redemptive plan, seeing it as markedly more significant than the variations in God's dispensations of grace.

A true "Reformed Baptist" (as I understand the term, as described above) is Reformed FIRST, and Baptist second. That is, he holds FAR MORE in common theologically with a conservative Presbyterian brother than he does with your generic, 1-each evangelical, "3-point," quasi-arminian-semi-calvinistic, baptistic brother - though they ARE still brothers.

"Reformed" Baptists that see their credobaptist position as more significant than the doctrines of grace, or the continuity of redemptive history are confused - IMO

 

[ReformedChapin]

I find the term "Reformed Baptist" useful. As I understand the term (as it described me for several years), it informs people that the Baptist under consideration: 1) Holds to the 5 Points of Calvinism, 2) is NOT a dispensationalist, 3) holds to a high view of the continuity of God's redemptive plan, seeing it as markedly more significant than the variations in God's dispensations of grace.

A true "Reformed Baptist" (as I understand the term, as described above) is Reformed FIRST, and Baptist second. That is, he holds FAR MORE in common theologically with a conservative Presbyterian brother than he does with your generic, 1-each evangelical, "3-point," quasi-arminian-semi-calvinistic, baptistic brother - though they ARE still brothers.

"Reformed" Baptists that see their credobaptist position as more significant than the doctrines of grace, or the continuity of redemptive history are confused - IMO

Actually I have seen anything from 4 point dispesationalists to covenantal Arminians call themselves "reformed baptists." The term seems practically meaningless to me.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Since we're on the subject, this idea that Baptists were not products of the Reformation and that they predated it is mythical.

Lots of churches have apocryphal stories about their origins though.

Roman Catholics like to pretend Peter was the first Pope, for example.

I agree, but ey what can you do? The best baptist can do is make some false history or allign themselves with heretics to keep their credobaptism.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Since we're on the subject, this idea that Baptists were not products of the Reformation and that they predated it is mythical.

Lots of churches have apocryphal stories about their origins though.

Roman Catholics like to pretend Peter was the first Pope, for example.

I tend to agree. This kind of reminds me of the origin of Superman and all the revisions editing and re-interpretations from 1939 to today. When the two young American-Jewish creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster first introduced Superman, he did not have the ability to fly. He could leap tall buildings in a single bound. Over time through editors and writers his powers gradually increased. In the mid-80's after the 12 part series Crisis on Infinite Earths, which publisher DC decided to use the changes from that series to impact the DC universe of characters, and re-launch new visions of characters. Superman under the direction of John Byrne, toned down his powers and abilities from those of the Silver and Bronze age version of Superman. Since then, after his death, and return (90's) his powers have gradually been increased. I think Superman stories should always be told, with him as kind of a grown up boyscout, and symbol of truth and justice.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Concerning false histories, the Albigensians (Cathari) were, at best, heterodox and more likely followers of Gnostic heresies.

The Waldensians were orthodox medieval Christians persicuted by Rome, but they were also paedobaptists, which is one reason they mostly merged with the Reformed Church during the Reformation.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

 

[JasonLibertad]

I find the term "Reformed Baptist" useful. As I understand the term (as it described me for several years), it informs people that the Baptist under consideration: 1) Holds to the 5 Points of Calvinism, 2) is NOT a dispensationalist, 3) holds to a high view of the continuity of God's redemptive plan, seeing it as markedly more significant than the variations in God's dispensations of grace.

A true "Reformed Baptist" (as I understand the term, as described above) is Reformed FIRST, and Baptist second. That is, he holds FAR MORE in common theologically with a conservative Presbyterian brother than he does with your generic, 1-each evangelical, "3-point," quasi-arminian-semi-calvinistic, baptistic brother - though they ARE still brothers.

"Reformed" Baptists that see their credobaptist position as more significant than the doctrines of grace, or the continuity of redemptive history are confused - IMO

I could not agree with you more.

 

[JasonLibertad]

Actually I have seen anything from 4 point dispesationalists to covenantal Arminians call themselves "reformed baptists." The term seems practically meaningless to me.

I have not met one Arminian minded member of a Reformed Baptist church. In fact many of the people that fellowship at Reformed Baptist Churches are people that come out of Arminian churches once they realize the truth is not being preached there.

 

[Anoetos]

I know we've had this conversation dozens of times, but it really think it boils down to something as simple as what "reformed" means. If it is purely denotative or mainly taxonomic.

What I mean is, if it is taxonomic, it refers to a specific church history, a taxonomic "descent" from one of the first, self-consciously Reformed churches.

If it's denotative, it refers to acceptance of "Reformed Theology" and we would have to agree on what that is. Again, many of us would probably be inclined to understand it as descending from one of the historic reformed confessions and confessional instruments (Belgic, Heidelberg, Westminster, etc.).

In either case there are problems for Baptists. If it's taxonomic, they represent a theological departure from the congregationalists on the one hand and if it's denotative, they may claim the London 1689 as a truly Reformed instrument, but it's departures especially in the matter of the sacraments is troubling.

In actual practice, I don't usually bat an eye when a Baptist calls himself Reformed. It's not a hill I want to die on with every baptist brother at every time in every place. But I do have a problem with churches describing themselves as "Reformed Baptist" because it assumes that both the taxonomic and denotative problems have been resolved. They have not.

 

[the particular baptist]

In either case there are problems for Baptists. If it's taxonomic, they represent a theological departure from the congregationalists on the one hand and if it's denotative, they may claim the London 1689 as a truly Reformed instrument, but it's departures especially in the matter of the sacraments is troubling.

I agree with you. And, the '89 is not a reformed document. It is and always will be a baptist document. If the strict baptists of the 1600-1700 wanted to call themselves reformed they would have, (the entire reformed world would have horse laughed them) but they would never have done such a thing because they were baptists. Baptist & Reformed is a historic oxymoron. There are baptists today that descended from the baptists of the 44/46, and 89', they call themselves strict baptists, sovereign grace baptists, or gospel standard baptists.

A true "Reformed Baptist" (as I understand the term, as described above) is Reformed FIRST, and Baptist second.

Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with your definition of reformed baptist.

That is, he holds FAR MORE in common theologically with a conservative Presbyterian brother than he does with your generic, 1-each evangelical, "3-point," quasi-arminian-semi-calvinistic, baptistic brother - though they ARE still brothers.

Strict baptists of yesterday and today, including this one, dont consider the arminian gospel, "the gospel", and dont recognize will worshipers as brothers. Historic baptists were not dispensationalist and their modern successors arent either. I didnt know if you knew that or not.

 

[msortwell]

Strict baptists of yesterday and today, including this one, dont consider the arminian gospel, "the gospel", and dont recognize will worshipers as brothers. Historic baptists were not dispensationalist and their modern successors arent either. I didnt know if you knew that or not.

I am pretty well versed in Baptist history. But I must confess that I am not particularly interested in what "strict baptists" of yesterday (or today) consider to be the gospel. My interest is in what the Inspired Text describes as the gospel. I find much of what you write expresses appropriate concern regarding errors and failings in the theology of certain groups. However, you often use words, frequently borrowed words, that are unnecessarily pejorative.

Calling a true Arminian a "will worshiper" is neither accurate nor necessary. It is true that they have a significantly flawed understanding of their role in the salvation process, but they look to Christ and His death upon the Cross as their only hope for salvation. They affirm the gospel as expressly stated in 1Cor15.

Within God's Sovereign plan He allows error to be held, even among His people. What I perceive to be your flawed understanding of baptism does NOT raise a question in my mind regarding the genuineness of your faith, this despite the fact that baptism is very significant in God's redemptive work today.

There is great need for honest and open debate. There is also need for iron sharpening iron. But there is also a need for grace. The lack of a full-orbed and right understanding of God's grace does not immediately convince me that an individual living with a flawed understanding is NOT under God's grace. However, when those who proclaim to be my brothers show a absence of grace toward the ignorant and the erring THAT stirs within me the concern.

Many of my fellow Calvinists and Reformed brethren had in the past held to an Arminian(ish) view. When their theology got straightened out, most of them will testify that they did not get saved at that point. They were saved already. They worshiped the Living God. They loved the Christ who died for them. When my understanding was Arminian(ish) I was confused, but I was not lost and I was not a "will worshiper."