Baptist Distinctives. Distinct and different from...?

[Bobby Ross]

In short, they are exactly like the creeds*.


* Except that the creeds have always been accepted by all orthodox Christians for 1700 or so years. Scratch that....there is a HUGE difference in the creeds and the Baptist distinctives. Although it remains disingenuous for someone to reject creedal statements as authoritative since they are not "Bible alone" and hold their denominational distinctives as authoritative in any manner whatsoever.

I'm not quite sure my comprehension is where it needs to be, so forgive me.  Are you making an argument for creedal statements as authoritative, against distinctives as scriptural, or saying that the distinctives are in question because they have not been accepted by "orthodox" Christians for 1700 years?

Are not creeds the words of men?  Would not their worth be based solely upon their foundation upon scripture alone (as opposed to which church "father" or which denomination was responsible for their development, practice and propagation)? If the creeds or practices of the "orthodox" veer away from their scriptural moorings, should they not be identified, reproved, and scripture magnified to mark truth?

Please accept this post in the spirit of inquisitiveness in which it was posted.  I am sincere in my questions, and not attempting to instigate any ill will whatsoever.  Thanks

 

[christundivided]

In short, they are exactly like the creeds*.


* Except that the creeds have always been accepted by all orthodox Christians for 1700 or so years. Scratch that....there is a HUGE difference in the creeds and the Baptist distinctives. Although it remains disingenuous for someone to reject creedal statements as authoritative since they are not "Bible alone" and hold their denominational distinctives as authoritative in any manner whatsoever.

I'm not quite sure my comprehension is where it needs to be, so forgive me.  Are you making an argument for creedal statements as authoritative, against distinctives as scriptural, or saying that the distinctives are in question because they have not been accepted by "orthodox" Christians for 1700 years?

Are not creeds the words of men?  Would not their worth be based solely upon their foundation upon scripture alone (as opposed to which church "father" or which denomination was responsible for their development, practice and propagation)? If the creeds or practices of the "orthodox" veer away from their scriptural moorings, should they not be identified, reproved, and scripture magnified to mark truth?

Please accept this post in the spirit of inquisitiveness in which it was posted.  I am sincere in my questions, and not attempting to instigate any ill will whatsoever.  Thanks

Your Baptist "distinctions" are the "words of men".

Moreover, the fact you apply them exclusively to a particular group of people, proves they are nothing more than the "words of men".

 

[rsc2a]

I am not currently making an argument either way.  I'm saying someone who rejects creedal statements for not being "Bible alone" while holding up denominational distinctives as doctrinal statements is talking out both sides of their mouth.

However, I do see the creeds as authoritative.  They (and the two great commandments) define what Christianity is. Granted,  your salvation isn't dependent on accepting them, but insomuch as you reject them,  you reject Christianity.  And,  for those who refuse to accept the creeds as not "Bible alone", I'd ask them how they determined what is or is not Scripture.

 

[TimbauxRioux]

Great thread... "Baptist Distinctives" who developed this idea? According to Bush and Nettles, these are ideas formulated well after the establishment of the Baptists:

"Early Baptists did not think exclusively in terms of Baptist distinctives. They affirmed Christian doctrines. They believed that they were being true to Scripture in their view of the ordinances, their view of God, and so forth, and they called on other Christians to join them in their faithfulness." Baptists and the Bible (Revised and expanded) (341). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. my emphasis

I have at least two thoughts on this...

1) I believe that Confessional Baptist origins has been replaced by a list of "distinctives" which relates more to polity than it does doctrine. The Reformed Baptists and SBC Founders Movement have worked to get us back to our Confessional/Creedal roots.

2) No two authors agree as to what the "Baptist Distinctives" are. This is a problem. They have considerable overlaps, but each author likes to interject his own idea. The Southern Baptists in the 1960s developed this popular acronym:

Biblical Authority...

I believe your point #1 is what the "B" is inanely trying to address. I don't know how many folks I've heard say, "We don't need no creeds. We got the Bible..." then turn around and cite the Baptist distinctives as authoritative doctrine.

In seminary, i remember Dr Barnes explaining why he preferred non-credal statement of faith,, and he felt that creeds limit and cap thinking and further development.

All my years preaching, and teach, I have never heard someone speak of the distinctives as being more than an Identifier.

It really is sad that you can not see that you've created a distinction with no practical difference. Its common among IFBs. They are so self absorbed that they can't see the forest for the trees. You use the term "identifier" as if its not the purpose of a "creed" to "identify" something.

No... no you got that wrong. i did not say that a creed is not an identifier. I said the "distinctives" are identifiers.

Creeds are full-blown doctrinal statements (if they are really creeds or confessions), the distinctives are not. Creeds and confessions go the whole range of doctrine, and each point is given a little more explanation. Distinctives are short and to the point, a sentence or a half of a sentence, a phrase.

Southern Baptists (my education is SBC) have (or had when I was there) a non-creedal statement of faith, separate from the Distinctives (which, by the way are claimed by MANY Baptist groups). Although the Baptist Faith and Message (sbc ) touches on the distinctives, it is a full blown doctrinal statement, while the distinctives only list the things that set Baptists apart. 

The Baptist Faith and Message looks like other non-Baptist creeds, and most orthodox Christians would agree with it almost in its entirety... those places where they may differ are listed in the distinctives.

Hope this helps.

 

[christundivided]

Great thread... "Baptist Distinctives" who developed this idea? According to Bush and Nettles, these are ideas formulated well after the establishment of the Baptists:

"Early Baptists did not think exclusively in terms of Baptist distinctives. They affirmed Christian doctrines. They believed that they were being true to Scripture in their view of the ordinances, their view of God, and so forth, and they called on other Christians to join them in their faithfulness." Baptists and the Bible (Revised and expanded) (341). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. my emphasis

I have at least two thoughts on this...

1) I believe that Confessional Baptist origins has been replaced by a list of "distinctives" which relates more to polity than it does doctrine. The Reformed Baptists and SBC Founders Movement have worked to get us back to our Confessional/Creedal roots.

2) No two authors agree as to what the "Baptist Distinctives" are. This is a problem. They have considerable overlaps, but each author likes to interject his own idea. The Southern Baptists in the 1960s developed this popular acronym:

Biblical Authority...

I believe your point #1 is what the "B" is inanely trying to address. I don't know how many folks I've heard say, "We don't need no creeds. We got the Bible..." then turn around and cite the Baptist distinctives as authoritative doctrine.

In seminary, i remember Dr Barnes explaining why he preferred non-credal statement of faith,, and he felt that creeds limit and cap thinking and further development.

All my years preaching, and teach, I have never heard someone speak of the distinctives as being more than an Identifier.

It really is sad that you can not see that you've created a distinction with no practical difference. Its common among IFBs. They are so self absorbed that they can't see the forest for the trees. You use the term "identifier" as if its not the purpose of a "creed" to "identify" something.

No... no you got that wrong. i did not say that a creed is not an identifier. I said the "distinctives" are identifiers.

Creeds are full-blown doctrinal statements (if they are really creeds or confessions), the distinctives are not. Creeds and confessions go the whole range of doctrine, and each point is given a little more explanation. Distinctives are short and to the point, a sentence or a half of a sentence, a phrase.

So let me get this straight.... You're saying there is a difference because of the "length" of the "phrase"? Really?

Southern Baptists (my education is SBC) have (or had when I was there) a non-creedal statement of faith, separate from the Distinctives (which, by the way are claimed by MANY Baptist groups). Although the Baptist Faith and Message (sbc ) touches on the distinctives, it is a full blown doctrinal statement, while the distinctives only list the things that set Baptists apart. 

You're not doing a very good job of talking around the issue. You need to try harder. Here is a link to the SBC beliefs in the "Church".

http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/acloserlook.asp

I'd say that falls right inline with a "creed".  Its a formal statement concerning a belief. The length doesn't matter.

The Baptist Faith and Message looks like other non-Baptist creeds, and most orthodox Christians would agree with it almost in its entirety... those places where they may differ are listed in the distinctives.

Hope this helps.

Not so good....

Again. It doesn't make a difference if you're "distinct" or not. You're telling others what you believe regardless of whether its "unique" or not. In such, your "distinctions" can be seen as a "creed".

 

[rsc2a]

Great thread... "Baptist Distinctives" who developed this idea? According to Bush and Nettles, these are ideas formulated well after the establishment of the Baptists:

"Early Baptists did not think exclusively in terms of Baptist distinctives. They affirmed Christian doctrines. They believed that they were being true to Scripture in their view of the ordinances, their view of God, and so forth, and they called on other Christians to join them in their faithfulness." Baptists and the Bible (Revised and expanded) (341). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. my emphasis

I have at least two thoughts on this...

1) I believe that Confessional Baptist origins has been replaced by a list of "distinctives" which relates more to polity than it does doctrine. The Reformed Baptists and SBC Founders Movement have worked to get us back to our Confessional/Creedal roots.

2) No two authors agree as to what the "Baptist Distinctives" are. This is a problem. They have considerable overlaps, but each author likes to interject his own idea. The Southern Baptists in the 1960s developed this popular acronym:

Biblical Authority...

I believe your point #1 is what the "B" is inanely trying to address. I don't know how many folks I've heard say, "We don't need no creeds. We got the Bible..." then turn around and cite the Baptist distinctives as authoritative doctrine.

In seminary, i remember Dr Barnes explaining why he preferred non-credal statement of faith,, and he felt that creeds limit and cap thinking and further development.

All my years preaching, and teach, I have never heard someone speak of the distinctives as being more than an Identifier.

It really is sad that you can not see that you've created a distinction with no practical difference. Its common among IFBs. They are so self absorbed that they can't see the forest for the trees. You use the term "identifier" as if its not the purpose of a "creed" to "identify" something.

No... no you got that wrong. i did not say that a creed is not an identifier. I said the "distinctives" are identifiers.

Creeds are full-blown doctrinal statements (if they are really creeds or confessions), the distinctives are not. Creeds and confessions go the whole range of doctrine, and each point is given a little more explanation. Distinctives are short and to the point, a sentence or a half of a sentence, a phrase...

"I believe in God, the Father, Almighty,  maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son,  our Lord..."

Yes?

 

[bgwilkinson]

Great thread... "Baptist Distinctives" who developed this idea? According to Bush and Nettles, these are ideas formulated well after the establishment of the Baptists:

"Early Baptists did not think exclusively in terms of Baptist distinctives. They affirmed Christian doctrines. They believed that they were being true to Scripture in their view of the ordinances, their view of God, and so forth, and they called on other Christians to join them in their faithfulness." Baptists and the Bible (Revised and expanded) (341). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers. my emphasis

I have at least two thoughts on this...

1) I believe that Confessional Baptist origins has been replaced by a list of "distinctives" which relates more to polity than it does doctrine. The Reformed Baptists and SBC Founders Movement have worked to get us back to our Confessional/Creedal roots.

2) No two authors agree as to what the "Baptist Distinctives" are. This is a problem. They have considerable overlaps, but each author likes to interject his own idea. The Southern Baptists in the 1960s developed this popular acronym:

Biblical Authority...

I believe your point #1 is what the "B" is inanely trying to address. I don't know how many folks I've heard say, "We don't need no creeds. We got the Bible..." then turn around and cite the Baptist distinctives as authoritative doctrine.

In seminary, i remember Dr Barnes explaining why he preferred non-credal statement of faith,, and he felt that creeds limit and cap thinking and further development.

All my years preaching, and teach, I have never heard someone speak of the distinctives as being more than an Identifier.

It really is sad that you can not see that you've created a distinction with no practical difference. Its common among IFBs. They are so self absorbed that they can't see the forest for the trees. You use the term "identifier" as if its not the purpose of a "creed" to "identify" something.

No... no you got that wrong. i did not say that a creed is not an identifier. I said the "distinctives" are identifiers.

Creeds are full-blown doctrinal statements (if they are really creeds or confessions), the distinctives are not. Creeds and confessions go the whole range of doctrine, and each point is given a little more explanation. Distinctives are short and to the point, a sentence or a half of a sentence, a phrase...

"I believe in God, the Father, Almighty,  maker of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son,  our Lord..."

Yes?

Yes. Amen.

 

[TimbauxRioux]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession. 

 

[Bobby Ross]

In short, they are exactly like the creeds*.


* Except that the creeds have always been accepted by all orthodox Christians for 1700 or so years. Scratch that....there is a HUGE difference in the creeds and the Baptist distinctives. Although it remains disingenuous for someone to reject creedal statements as authoritative since they are not "Bible alone" and hold their denominational distinctives as authoritative in any manner whatsoever.

I'm not quite sure my comprehension is where it needs to be, so forgive me.  Are you making an argument for creedal statements as authoritative, against distinctives as scriptural, or saying that the distinctives are in question because they have not been accepted by "orthodox" Christians for 1700 years?

Are not creeds the words of men?  Would not their worth be based solely upon their foundation upon scripture alone (as opposed to which church "father" or which denomination was responsible for their development, practice and propagation)? If the creeds or practices of the "orthodox" veer away from their scriptural moorings, should they not be identified, reproved, and scripture magnified to mark truth?

Please accept this post in the spirit of inquisitiveness in which it was posted.  I am sincere in my questions, and not attempting to instigate any ill will whatsoever.  Thanks

Your Baptist "distinctions" are the "words of men".

Moreover, the fact you apply them exclusively to a particular group of people, proves they are nothing more than the "words of men".

How is biblical authority, or sola scriptura if you prefer words of men?  How about the priesthood of the believer, or only saved as true members of the assembly?

I get it very clearly you hold Baptists in contempt at best.  The op was about "Baptist" not Presbyterian or any other particular denominations, that is the reason for the narrow focus.  If you wish to discuss the superiority of your beliefs, perhaps a different thread might be helpful,no?

 

[christundivided]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah....

I applaud you for 9 years of "school". However, you're failing to provide any meaningful difference between a "creed" and a "distinction". You're simply saying they are different because one is longer and more descriptive than the other. Saying your "Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that you're really any different than the statements found in the "Westminster Confession".

On a side note, Have you ever read the Baptist Confession of 1689?

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession.

This is where I agree TR, the distinctives define what a Baptist is, but inside that you could be a Felllowship Baptist, an Independent Baptist, a Southern Baptist, a Free Will Baptist, a Calvinist Baptist, etc. These particulars do not preclude you from being a Baptist. You could be Deacon board run, or practice Pastoral Authourity, still Baptist. Universal Church or Local Church only, still Baptist. KJVO or many versions, still Baptist.

Going back in history, you are not looking for Churches that swore to a confession, but churches that practiced those distinctives.

Now, there are independent churches that practice those beliefs which we recognize as Baptist without using the name, but they are few and far between, and there are many who claim to hold to those doctrines that Baptists hold as distinctives, but they fail at the distinctive of Baptism. To accept someone into membership that was baptized by another mode someplace else is to fail the criteria of believers baptism by immersion only, a tenet Baptists have stood for for a very long time.

In my studies, the balance of creeds and confessions are binding and restrictive.

And BTW, the Baptist Faith and Message makes you Southern Baptist, or to be clearer, a type of Baptist, but you don't have to agree with it to be Baptist.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah....

I applaud you for 9 years of "school". However, you're failing to provide any meaningful difference between a "creed" and a "distinction". You're simply saying they are different because one is longer and more descriptive than the other. Saying your "Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that you're really any different than the statements found in the "Westminster Confession".

On a side note, Have you ever read the Baptist Confession of 1689?

Which would have defined you as a "Particular Baptist" or Calvinist, but no one was saying that if you didn't agree with it you weren't Baptist. T-Bone is a Baptist, but he and I don't agree on a buncha stuff.

 

[christundivided]

In short, they are exactly like the creeds*.


* Except that the creeds have always been accepted by all orthodox Christians for 1700 or so years. Scratch that....there is a HUGE difference in the creeds and the Baptist distinctives. Although it remains disingenuous for someone to reject creedal statements as authoritative since they are not "Bible alone" and hold their denominational distinctives as authoritative in any manner whatsoever.

I'm not quite sure my comprehension is where it needs to be, so forgive me.  Are you making an argument for creedal statements as authoritative, against distinctives as scriptural, or saying that the distinctives are in question because they have not been accepted by "orthodox" Christians for 1700 years?

Are not creeds the words of men?  Would not their worth be based solely upon their foundation upon scripture alone (as opposed to which church "father" or which denomination was responsible for their development, practice and propagation)? If the creeds or practices of the "orthodox" veer away from their scriptural moorings, should they not be identified, reproved, and scripture magnified to mark truth?

Please accept this post in the spirit of inquisitiveness in which it was posted.  I am sincere in my questions, and not attempting to instigate any ill will whatsoever.  Thanks

Your Baptist "distinctions" are the "words of men".

Moreover, the fact you apply them exclusively to a particular group of people, proves they are nothing more than the "words of men".

How is biblical authority, or sola scriptura if you prefer words of men?  How about the priesthood of the believer, or only saved as true members of the assembly?

I get it very clearly you hold Baptists in contempt at best.  The op was about "Baptist" not Presbyterian or any other particular denominations, that is the reason for the narrow focus.  If you wish to discuss the superiority of your beliefs, perhaps a different thread might be helpful,no?

Your distinctions were written by men. Are you saying your distinctions are "inspired of God"? While they may agree with some parts of Christendom, they certainly aren't "Divine". It is rather comical that you're talking of "sola scriptura" and then claim your list doesn't come from a "prima scriptura" mentality.

I'm personally between "Sola Scriptura" and "Prima Scriptura".... which I would practically say... most of Christendom can be found. You can say anything you like.  Back it up with how you practice sad beliefs and how they are practically applied.

 

[Citadel of Truth]

You can say anything you like.  Back it up with how you practice sad beliefs...

I couldn't have described you better myself...  8)

 

[christundivided]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah....

I applaud you for 9 years of "school". However, you're failing to provide any meaningful difference between a "creed" and a "distinction". You're simply saying they are different because one is longer and more descriptive than the other. Saying your "Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that you're really any different than the statements found in the "Westminster Confession".

On a side note, Have you ever read the Baptist Confession of 1689?

Which would have defined you as a "Particular Baptist" or Calvinist, but no one was saying that if you didn't agree with it you weren't Baptist. T-Bone is a Baptist, but he and I don't agree on a buncha stuff.

I really can't believe that you're actually taking up the agreement. I know you've been taught this most of your life.... but it really is so silly. Its no wonder most of you really have no idea how to defend yourselves.

T-Bone is a little "b". Your "B" is as big a Mount Rushmore.

 

[christundivided]

You can say anything you like.  Back it up with how you practice sad beliefs...

I couldn't have described you better myself...  8)

You know you love me. The "power of Christ" compels you!!!!  8)

 

[christundivided]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession.

This is where I agree TR, the distinctives define what a Baptist is, but inside that you could be a Felllowship Baptist, an Independent Baptist, a Southern Baptist, a Free Will Baptist, a Calvinist Baptist, etc. These particulars do not preclude you from being a Baptist. You could be Deacon board run, or practice Pastoral Authourity, still Baptist. Universal Church or Local Church only, still Baptist. KJVO or many versions, still Baptist.

Going back in history, you are not looking for Churches that swore to a confession, but churches that practiced those distinctives.

Now, there are independent churches that practice those beliefs which we recognize as Baptist without using the name, but they are few and far between, and there are many who claim to hold to those doctrines that Baptists hold as distinctives, but they fail at the distinctive of Baptism. To accept someone into membership that was baptized by another mode someplace else is to fail the criteria of believers baptism by immersion only, a tenet Baptists have stood for for a very long time.

In my studies, the balance of creeds and confessions are binding and restrictive.

And BTW, the Baptist Faith and Message makes you Southern Baptist, or to be clearer, a type of Baptist, but you don't have to agree with it to be Baptist.

If this is true, then... how are you "distinct"?

You can't make this stuff up!!!!

 

[TimbauxRioux]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah....

I applaud you for 9 years of "school". However, you're failing to provide any meaningful difference between a "creed" and a "distinction". You're simply saying they are different because one is longer and more descriptive than the other. Saying your "Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that you're really any different than the statements found in the "Westminster Confession".

On a side note, Have you ever read the Baptist Confession of 1689?

Like I said..about FOUR times.... the distinctives could never be listed as CREED or CONFESSION because they do not cover the full range of doctrine. I asked you to compare a creed/confession and tell me if you thought the acronymized distinctives touched on the full range of issues, and you didnt answer.

If someone entered a church and asked you for a statement of beliefs, and was handed the Baptist distinctives, if the guy knew his stuff, he'd say "Wait..there is much more to a statement of beliefs than just THIS."

First day of school, we were all given a statement of faith and had to write our opinion about each point. We were given the Baptist Faith And Message, not the Baptist distinctives. This is laughable, I can't believe you actually think the distinctives are a creed.

Anyway, you poke at Ransom, and the others, trying to get them to debate with you. They refuse, and its not because they think they will suffer defeat, but because when they beat you, you will never admit it.

Have a good day.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

For Christundivided

What I am saying is the creed/confession is more exhaustive, goes the full range of topics normally found in creeds...where as The Baptist Distinctives are an acronymized summary of where Baptists are different from others.

No, the distinctives are not a creed. Nobody I have ever heard of in my nine years of school have ever said that the distincitves are a creed. never. They simply do not touch on the full range of topics required to enumerate the beliefs of a group. Acronymized points are not exhaustive enough, as a whole, or point-by-point to be a creed.

You can call them a creed if you want, but nobody else is going to.

As for talking around the issue.. WHY would I need to do that?

Put a creed up on your screen.. get another computer and bring up the acrynomized distinctives and tell me if the latter touches on the full range of doctrine that the former one does. It don't. I doubt you will find someone else on the forum that thinks that the distinctives are intended to be a full range creed/confession.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah....

I applaud you for 9 years of "school". However, you're failing to provide any meaningful difference between a "creed" and a "distinction". You're simply saying they are different because one is longer and more descriptive than the other. Saying your "Sola Scriptura" doesn't mean that you're really any different than the statements found in the "Westminster Confession".

On a side note, Have you ever read the Baptist Confession of 1689?

Which would have defined you as a "Particular Baptist" or Calvinist, but no one was saying that if you didn't agree with it you weren't Baptist. T-Bone is a Baptist, but he and I don't agree on a buncha stuff.

And yet both you Baptists claim to be sola scriptura. 

 

[Citadel of Truth]

Like I said..about FOUR times....

Don't give up. The average for CU's deflections and dodges are 12.67 (+/- 1.25) times per thread (figures based on a three page thread).

I asked you to compare a creed/confession and tell me if you thought the acronymized distinctives touched on the full range of issues, and you didnt answer.

When he has no answer, he refuses to answer. Not an unwise tactic, to be sure. He will, however, ask you a question and demand that you answer him before he answers you. Trust me, even after you answer he'll still ignore your question.

I can't believe you actually think the distinctives are a creed.

The problem is, he may or may not believe that. He will never admit it now; he's in too deeply.

Anyway, you poke at Ransom, and the others, trying to get them to debate with you. They refuse, and its not because they think they will suffer defeat, but because when they beat you, you will never admit it.

You figured this out in under 40 posts. That's impressive. It took me a bit longer. Glad to have you on the team.  ???