Why i am a baptist

[The Portuguese Baptist]

In the first century church people were accepted as believers who wanted Gentile converts to obey the whole of the Mosaic law and be circumcised(Acts15:5)

And Paul argued strongly against that belief. What is your point?

The Apostle Paul was obviously also accepted as a believer.

Evidently. What is your point?

There was only one church denomination at that time, it obviously covered a broad spectrum of people.
If only the same could be so today

I disagree. I do not think that different denominations are bad.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I believe there are some things you don't quite understand.

http://cbctinleypark.org/assets/calvinism.pdf

TE]

Could you please clarify?

By the way, I do not feel like reading that 13-page article you have sent me; I hope you can be more specific and use your own words.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I disagree. I do not think that different denominations are bad.

I have given them the glory you gave me, that they may be one as we are one
I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity
John 17:22&23

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I have given them the glory you gave me, that they may be one as we are one
I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity
John 17:22&23

Denominations do not prevent unity. All denominations agree on the basic aspects of faith, and disagreements generally arise only in minor issues, which are not very biblically clear. Nevertheless, all denominations are united.

Here in Portugal, the corpus that unites them is the Portuguese Evangelical Alliance, of which all evangelical churches, regardless of denomination, are members, having a common statement of faith; no denomination is seen as hostile by any other.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Denominations do not prevent unity. All denominations agree on the basic aspects of faith, and disagreements generally arise only in minor issues, which are not very biblically clear. Nevertheless, all denominations are united.

Here in Portugal, the corpus that unites them is the Portuguese Evangelical Alliance, of which all evangelical churches, regardless of denomination, are members, having a common statement of faith; no denomination is seen as hostile by any other.

Do you consider the bible's teaching on baptism a "minor" issue

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

Do you consider the bible's teaching on baptism a "minor" issue

Hey! I said ‘generally’, not ‘always’.

Whether it is a minor issue or not is discussable. Can a person who believes in infant baptism be saved? I would say: probably, but I cannot be sure. It is surely a relevant issue, but probably not crucial for the Christian faith. So, whether or not it is a ‘minor’ issue depends on your definition of a ‘minor issue’.

What is your point, though? What solution do you propose? That we cease to call ourselves ‘Baptists’ and accept all views of baptism alike, uniting all Protestant denominations? Or that we utterly reject as Christians all those who accept infant baptism, requiring that as an absolutely critical issue for our faith? In order words, what is your point?

 

[Grandpa4]

I consider myself a Baptist because the only person who ever red enough about my soul to ask "Are you saved? was a baptist. I actually became a Baptist before I was saved. Since then I've heard that there are 40 or more different kinds of Baptist churches. In my home city there is a 7th Day Baptist church.

 

[Goodbook]

I remember a girl in high school who was a baptist and also a girl who was presy, before I became a christian, and I definitely saw a difference in the way they practised their faith and their characters, the girl who was baptist, i thought she was what a christian ought to be like as she followed Gods word and acted on it, the other girl, she was not so talking about Jesus, it was more like she believed in God, but was lukewarm about Jesus.

 

[Goodbook]

Baptists tend to be more evangelical than other kinds of denoms. I mean the other denoms had their missionaries but they werent so zealous to their own communities which are mission fields as well. I dont know why this is, just something I noticed.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Hey! I said ‘generally’, not ‘always’.

Whether it is a minor issue or not is discussable. Can a person who believes in infant baptism be saved? I would say: probably, but I cannot be sure. It is surely a relevant issue, but probably not crucial for the Christian faith. So, whether or not it is a ‘minor’ issue depends on your definition of a ‘minor issue’.

What is your point, though? What solution do you propose? That we cease to call ourselves ‘Baptists’ and accept all views of baptism alike, uniting all Protestant denominations? Or that we utterly reject as Christians all those who accept infant baptism, requiring that as an absolutely critical issue for our faith? In order words, what is your point?

We can certainly reject those who practice infant baptism as heretics. Read Romans 16:17.

Where in the word of God are we told that any doctrine is only minor?
Baptism is an extremely important doctrine, one that our Baptistic forefathers often died for at the hands of Protestants and Catholic State Churches.

 

[Goodbook]

Baptists have baby dedications but don't baptise babies. Babies don't really make any choice to be baptised.
Also, baptists don't have a thing like 'confirmation' as other churches do.
We have free will baptism, you just ask a pastor or minister to baptise you in Jesus name, father, son and holy spirit and he will do that no matter how old you are as long as YOU believe and confess Jesus is Lord.

Baptists also have full immersion as thats what Jesus had in the Jordan River. It wasn't just a dab on the forehead as I've seen other churches do with 'holy water'.

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

We can certainly reject those who practice infant baptism as heretics. Read Romans 16:17.

Romans 16:17 does not address infant baptism. You are removing the verse from its context. The immediately following verse, Romans 16:18, reads: ‘For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.’ It seems extremely forced, and even rather offensive, to apply these words to supporters of infant baptism.

Where in the word of God are we told that any doctrine is only minor?

Titus 2:9, though not explicitly, seems to suggest something like that: ‘But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.’ Clearly, there are issues we should avoid, because they are of little importance. Whether infant baptism is one of them is questionable (I personally am reluctant to pronounce it a minor issue, because it is very important for me, but I am also reluctant to pronounce it a major one, because I think that anyone can still be a Christian though he may accept infant baptism — that is why I said it depends on your definition).

However, I assume both you and I would agree that doctrines like Calvinism and Arminianism, or like Cessationism and Continuationism, or like Young Earth and Old Earth, which somehow divide the church today, are essentially minor. You would not force anyone to agree with you in these issues in order to accept him as a Christian, would you?

Baptism is an extremely important doctrine, one that our Baptistic forefathers often died for at the hands of Protestants and Catholic State Churches.

Doubtless. But that does not necessarily make it essential for the Christian faith.

So, you think that the Baptists are the only correct denomination, and that all others are wrong, and that only Baptists can be Christians? OK. So, you are against denominations, because you believe in only one denomination: the Baptists. Is that it? OK.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Romans 16:17 does not address infant baptism. You are removing the verse from its context. The immediately following verse, Romans 16:18, reads: ‘For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naïve people.’ It seems extremely forced, and even rather offensive, to apply these words to supporters of infant baptism.



Titus 2:9, though not explicitly, seems to suggest something like that: ‘But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.’ Clearly, there are issues we should avoid, because they are of little importance. Whether infant baptism is one of them is questionable (I personally am reluctant to pronounce it a minor issue, because it is very important for me, but I am also reluctant to pronounce it a major one, because I think that anyone can still be a Christian though he may accept infant baptism — that is why I said it depends on your definition).

However, I assume both you and I would agree that doctrines like Calvinism and Arminianism, or like Cessationism and Continuationism, or like Young Earth and Old Earth, which somehow divide the church today, are essentially minor. You would not force anyone to agree with you in these issues in order to accept him as a Christian, would you?



Doubtless. But that does not necessarily make it essential for the Christian faith.

So, you think that the Baptists are the only correct denomination, and that all others are wrong, and that only Baptists can be Christians? OK. So, you are against denominations, because you believe in only one denomination: the Baptists. Is that it? OK.

I am a Baptist by conviction.

I do not believe Baptists are the only ones who are saved. a person can be saved and be a Presbyterian.

Infant Baptism a major gross sin, because most people equate it with salvation, plus it allows unregenerate members into a church.

I would say Calvinism is a serious problem today, seeing that Calvinism contradicts much scripture.
Arminianism is also a serious problem, especially those teaching that you can lose your salvation, which in my mind is almost basically works salvation.

Cessationism is also a serious issue, seeing as how we are told that the antichrist will deceive use lying signs and wonders and many people ignore plain teachings of scripture in favor or "new revelation" or people equate having some emotional experience of "being slain in the spirit" or that because they "spoke in tongues" that they are saved because of it.

Every doctrine in the bible is a major issue, And absolutely I did not take Romans 16:17 out of context. The idea here is talking about people who teach false doctrine and deceive people. These people are the ones causing division, and they are to be shunned and avoided. you can apply this passage of scripture to anyone teaching any false doctrine.

We should never overlook doctrine simply for the sake of unity, the only time unity is possible is when we are following the teachings and doctrine of the bible.


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh7-NRdAnWCN88MeR_9vnzA4g7iZ39pEj

 

[The Portuguese Baptist]

I am a Baptist by conviction.

I do not believe Baptists are the only ones who are saved. a person can be saved and be a Presbyterian.

I agree with that.

Infant Baptism a major gross sin, because most people equate it with salvation, plus it allows unregenerate members into a church.

Although I vehemently condemn infant baptism, I would never go so far as to call it a sin. There are people who read infant baptism in the Bible, and I see no reason to say that they are sinning or that they are not Christians.

I would say Calvinism is a serious problem today, seeing that Calvinism contradicts much scripture.
Arminianism is also a serious problem, especially those teaching that you can lose your salvation, which in my mind is almost basically works salvation.

I disagree. I am a Calvinist, and I think that it is the most biblical view of salvation. Arminianism ignores many clear points in the Bible which pertain to election and predestination.

Cessationism is also a serious issue, seeing as how we are told that the antichrist will deceive use lying signs and wonders and many people ignore plain teachings of scripture in favor or "new revelation" or people equate having some emotional experience of "being slain in the spirit" or that because they "spoke in tongues" that they are saved because of it.

I think that, so long as one adheres to Sola Scriptura, being a Continuationist is not a problem.

Every doctrine in the bible is a major issue, And absolutely I did not take Romans 16:17 out of context. The idea here is talking about people who teach false doctrine and deceive people. These people are the ones causing division, and they are to be shunned and avoided. you can apply this passage of scripture to anyone teaching any false doctrine.

Again, given the following verse, it seems as though it is talking about people who wilfully deceive others, who ‘serve their own appetites’ and deceive by means of ‘smooth talk and flattery’. Again, it seems forced to take that for people who simply have their valid convictions about certain biblical issues; I just do not think that they wish to deceive people like that.

We should never overlook doctrine simply for the sake of unity, the only time unity is possible is when we are following the teachings and doctrine of the bible.


https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh7-NRdAnWCN88MeR_9vnzA4g7iZ39pEj

I think we can still be united as Christians even if we do not all believe in baptism the same way and in Calvinism and in Cessationism. You said Calvinism was a serious problem: do you think that I am not a Christian because I am a Calvinist?

 

[Goodbook]

I would say calvinism contradicts scripture too and people whove fallen for a man made doctrine need to not only search all of scripture to see if things are so, but to pray and ask God for wisdom.

We are not to cling to any 'isms'. That is a man made philosophy. The bible,calls this vain philosophy, the arguments of men. We are to seek the FULL counsel of God, which means read the Bible, all of it, not just the bits john calvin or whoever picked out.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. But take a middle ground position, I believe in election and predestination, as well as the free will of man and the sovereignty of God. I believe both are clearly taught in the scriptures.

BTW. Infant Baptism is definitely a sin. God hates manmade tradition that contradicts his word, in fact Jesus often confronted the Pharisees on it.

Acts chapter 8 is clear that belief is required for baptism. It's a false teaching damning souls to hell, and it's really a false gospel.

I have had multiple protestants tell me about their infant baptism when trying to ask them if they will go to heaven when they die. Infant Baptism is a form of idolatry, it's giving the qualities of Jesus Christ to water, It's extremely wicked and evil.

 

[Goodbook]

Yea I'm the same. I dont even know who armin is, but it seems the calvinists picked someone who didnt agree with their arguments amd labeled everyone else as following the other guy. Uh no.

 

[Goodbook]

Well, infant baptism is practised by presybeterians who are all calvinists, and catholics especially.

I see dangers of it. I think its maybe about not trusting God to work in your childs life. Insurance policy?

 

[royal priest]

Well, infant baptism is practised by presybeterians who are all calvinists, and catholics especially.

I see dangers of it. I think its maybe about not trusting God to work in your childs life. Insurance policy?

There are more non-Calvinist than Calvinist paedobaptists out there for sure (RCC)

 

[Swan7]

plus it's not biblical, at least no scripture points to infant baptism, and it clearly states: Acts 36-39