How Baptist Successionism undermines what it means to be a Baptist

[Bob H]

Just to let ya know, I like church history "debates"


Carry on.........................

 

[OZZY]

A belief, made popular in 1931 that Baptists can trace their roots, in a genealogical succession back to John the Baptist.

People who subscribe to this call themselves (and are know as): Landmarkists, Baptist-briders

The hard-liners are Landmarkists (a legitimate baptism is one administered by someone who was baptized by someone who was baptized by ..... John the Baptist)

Those uncomfortable with being hard-liners subscribe to what is called the "Spiritual Kinship Theory"

THE PROBLEMATIC BELIEF: The validation of Baptists is based on a succession of Baptist groups going back to John the Baptist.

Practical problems:

• History is based on documentation and verifiable facts. A succession cannot be proven by historical documentation. In fact, a number of statements and documents that do exist is that Baptists, from their beginnings in the 1600s REJECT an affiliation with anabaptists.
• A succession theory violates a primary Baptist distinctive of separation. Why would Baptists want to be identified with antiTrinitarians and full-blown gnostics?
• Since the Bible is the basis of authority, why is a contrived, mythical succession used to validate what a Baptist is?
• Immersion by Baptism and Soul Liberty are not enough to distinguish a group as Baptist.
• Baptist-Briders reject the idea that Baptists are protestants. However, the groups the Baptist-briders say we come from were protesting the Catholic church and broke away at great cost.
• If you are not baptized in a Baptist church, you need to be rebaptized.

Here are the groups identified as "Baptists" in the Trail of Blood. Many are Christian, but not all.

Montanists: Charismatics which believed their revelatory prophecies were either on par or exceeded the authority of Christ and Paul. They allowed dice playing (lol-thrown in to convince the hardended of all Baptists)
Paulicians: Gnostics (enough said)
Waldenses: close in beliefs to Particular Baptists. Calvinists. Interesting... Baptist-briders reject Calvinistic thought. Why would they say they came from them? 
Anabaptists: John Smyth complained in 1608: "...against the term Anabaptist as a name of reproach unjustly cast upon them [Baptists]"
Helwys split from Smyth when Smyth became an Anabaptist.
The Second London Baptist Confession says, clearly: "...which are commonly (though falsly) called ANABAPTISTS"
[/quote

Spurgeon made the following statement on April 2, 1861 in a great Baptist conference hosted by the Metropolitan Tabernacle.

"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man. We have ever been ready to suffer, as our martyrologies will prove, but we are not ready to accept any help from the State, to prostitute the purity of the Bride of Christ to any alliance with Government, and we will never make the Church, although the Queen, the despot over the consciences of men."

 

[OZZY]

I can see that you have an excellent grasp on the copy and paste function.

No matter if its cut and paste the quote was before 1931 which makes the Op a lie

 

[prophet]

Did I read that mennonites were accepted in your histirical Baptists list, PB?  Menos separated over grace.  Grace has to be earned, according to the Mennonites.  Anyone who cant comprehend the def. of grace is not a Baptistic believer.  Hell awaits those who have to earn God's grace.

Anishinabe

 

[OZZY]

No matter if its cut and paste the quote was before 1931 which makes the Op a lie

Oh.. I see...

That is the date when the Trail of Blood was published to prove the genetic tracing of the so-called successionism.

yet Spurgeon and other believed in Baptist succession years before TOB was written. So again your OP was a lie

 

[OZZY]

No matter if its cut and paste the quote was before 1931 which makes the Op a lie

Oh.. I see...

That is the date when the Trail of Blood was published to prove the genetic tracing of the so-called successionism.

yet Spurgeon and other believed in Baptist succession years before TOB was written. So again your OP was a lie

You need to reread what I wrote...

Spurgeon's quote did not give a geanological succession. Do you know of a genetic chart before 1931?

It is common knowledge that The Trail of Blood made the genetic succession view wildly popular. See what an expert wrote...

Perhaps we will witness a very rare moment where Ozzy will retract his silly "you lie" accusation... 3... 2... 1

aaiting for the rare monument when you admit you lied , not holding me breath BTW nice cut and paste job on the link. Guess it alright along as it supports your lie

 

[PappaBear]

Did I read that mennonites were accepted in your histirical Baptists list, PB?  Menos separated over grace.  Grace has to be earned, according to the Mennonites.  Anyone who cant comprehend the def. of grace is not a Baptistic believer.  Hell awaits those who have to earn God's grace.

Anishinabe

Yes, you did read that.  And I will strongly disagree with you.  I defer to William Estep's "The Anabaptist Story."  By the way, the same author has a great article on "The Calvinism of Southern Baptists" which was renamed "Doctrines Lead to Dunghill Prof Warns."

[quote author=William Estep]On the other doctrines of the Christian faith, Mennonites agreed with Protestants generally, It is true that there are several exceptions to this rule: Mennonites always opposed the Reformed (Calvinistic) doctrine of a limited atonement and of a predestination which determines who shall accept the gospel; and there was considerable emphasis, at least in recent years, on the need of perseverance in the Christian life.

By way of summary it may be said that Mennonites have a splendid understanding of the relation of the Testaments to each other; they have a fine grasp of the plan of salvation; they have a good emphasis on the necessity of a holy life; and they insist on the high calling of the Christian Church. [/quote]

The accusation you have made resembles current accusations against those who believe in Repentance and Lordship, which are also unfounded.  I am sure most today would think of Anabaptists as "legalists."  But their attempt to lead holy lives based upon New Testament principles was not to earn salvation, but because of salvation.  Holiness is not before, but follows after.  That distinction should not be lost.

 

[OZZY]

aaiting for the rare monument when you admit you lied , not holding me breath BTW nice cut and paste job on the link. Guess it alright along as it supports your lie

The word is "waiting."
The other word is "moment."

People rarely use "me" as a personal possessive pronoun.
Also "it" requires "'s"
Finally... the phrase you were looking for is "as long."

Slow down, read, then type. False accusers are QUICK to accuse and SLOW to listen.

Mimicking is also just plain silly. It shows low cognitive skills and a profound lack of critical thinking.

translated "Yes I lied on the OP and I refuse  to admit it"

 

[prophet]

Did I read that mennonites were accepted in your histirical Baptists list, PB?  Menos separated over grace.  Grace has to be earned, according to the Mennonites.  Anyone who cant comprehend the def. of grace is not a Baptistic believer.  Hell awaits those who have to earn God's grace.

Anishinabe

Yes, you did read that.  And I will strongly disagree with you.  I defer to William Estep's "The Anabaptist Story."  By the way, the same author has a great article on "The Calvinism of Southern Baptists" which was renamed "Doctrines Lead to Dunghill Prof Warns."

[quote author=William Estep]On the other doctrines of the Christian faith, Mennonites agreed with Protestants generally, It is true that there are several exceptions to this rule: Mennonites always opposed the Reformed (Calvinistic) doctrine of a limited atonement and of a predestination which determines who shall accept the gospel; and there was considerable emphasis, at least in recent years, on the need of perseverance in the Christian life.

By way of summary it may be said that Mennonites have a splendid understanding of the relation of the Testaments to each other; they have a fine grasp of the plan of salvation; they have a good emphasis on the necessity of a holy life; and they insist on the high calling of the Christian Church.

The accusation you have made resembles current accusations against those who believe in Repentance and Lordship, which are also unfounded.  I am sure most today would think of Anabaptists as "legalists."  But their attempt to lead holy lives based upon New Testament principles was not to earn salvation, but because of salvation.  Holiness is not before, but follows after.  That distinction should not be lost.
[/quote]I made no accusations.  I rented a building from the Mennonites, and was summarizing their statement of faith on Grace.  They believe that the definition of Grace cannot be "unmerited favor".  They believe that grace is bestowed on those who obey.  The hairs to be split over this are worth splitting.  They have added works to the redemption process. 
' Lordship Salvation '  is a term that is used to describe the doctrinal error of certain charismatic denominations, as well as a few evangelical protestant off shoots.  In this process  a soul must 'turn over a new leaf' and present himself to God for redemption, free from all sin.  As always, this presentation is 'overseen' by the church.  The church declares you 'saved' when your life shows that you no longer sin.  The 'doctrinal' teaching becomes a scripture twistathon, where every possible transgression of the law, that those 'saved' could commit is spiritualized, so as to deflect any accusation of the presence of sin.
The 'leading of the spirit' becomes the final authority, trumping even plainly written words, such as the forbiddance of women to speak to the assembly, or the behavior of ones children disqualifying their appointment to office.
I started 7 churches in Charismatic dominated areas, and have had many people tell me, 'if you sin, you aren't saved'.  This was followed by an accusation against Baptists of falsely claiming that God cleans up your life, when He moves in, and this is a life long process. Usually some external practice, like smoking, will be pointed out as an example of the lack of salvation evidence in a new Christian's life.  He wil be pestered to 'give in to God, and let Him save you', ubtil he quits smoking (to pacify man) or quits claiming redemption ('I'm still working on it, but God isn't finished with me yet, don't give up on me).  This person is considered a 2nd class church member, and the priviledged 'saved' are lauded openly, in every assembly, where, fat with pride, they strut around enjoying a near Catholic Saint status.  They are gods, because they 'made Jesus the lord of their life'.  Proud, arrogant, boasters, evil speakers, feeding themselves on the flock, who make their converts 2 fold more a child of Hell than themselves, these are.
Knock on doors of the Apostolic, COGIC, Evangelical Methodists, etc.
Witness of God's grace, preach the Gospel....you'll soon find out what the results of actual 'lordship salvation' is.
I don't know the areas in which you have pasrored, i cannot but speak that which i have seen and heard.  But i came by my observations honestly, and not through some man's book, website, sermon, or etc., but through 20 + years interviewing people daily. The phrase 'I made him lord of my life' has been the telltale catch phrase, that explains how the evil person that I am speaking with can claim Christ.  They really are their own god. 
  Come to Chicago with me, we'll knock doors, and start a church on the Westside.  It is badly needed there.  You'll see all the l.s. you can stomach, as you help repair the relationship with God, that people who were abused by those 'saints' and have given up all hope of their own salvation, have.  I'll  introduce you to scores of former l.s. abusees, and even a few former abusers.  Let them testify of the liberty that mercy and grace gave them.  Praise God! Sweet liberty! I'm  gonna go shout for awhile.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

translated "Yes I lied on the OP and I refuse  to admit it"

Says the man with the tin hat!

I guess I am expecting too much from Ozzy. If he cannot WRITE, then why expect him to be able to READ?

 

[OZZY]

translated "Yes I lied on the OP and I refuse  to admit it"

Says the man with the tin hat!

I guess I am expecting too much from Ozzy. If he cannot WRITE, then why expect him to be able to READ?

Well I am not expecting much from a proven liar like you.

 

[PappaBear]

I made no accusations. 

Your statements that broad brushed all Mennonites into hell were accusations, false ones.  You said,

Menos separated over grace.  Grace has to be earned, according to the Mennonites.  Anyone who cant comprehend the def. of grace is not a Baptistic believer.  Hell awaits those who have to earn God's grace.

I can appreciate your personal experiences.  But even if you have run across some that are unorthodox in your experience, that does not define the group as a whole.  Mennonites, like today's Baptists, can run the gamut of beliefs.  They are not a universal denomination demanding all churches conform to one doctrinal style sheet.  This same kind of situation came up on the Baptist Board back in 2005.  You can read that thread here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4089  An Anabaptist Mennonite posting under the handle Mercury well explained those differences on that thread, especially in his response to GodsAmbassador regarding the girl he thought had explained their beliefs to him.  He said, "I'd say that you knew her beliefs."

What the Calvinists like FSSL are doing is attempting a revisionist history to place all Baptists in a certain doctrinal box.  That cannot truthfully be done for the Baptists, and neither is it so for the Mennonites.  Modern Baptists have been heavily influenced by both Calvinists and Anabaptists.  Those two groups would like us to believe they are polar opposites, and will argue like star bellied sneetches with the plain bellied sneetches.  But there is a lot of history from both those camps under the Baptist umbrella.

I rented a building from the Mennonites,

I think that puts you in good company.  So did the Baptists under John Smyth.    That led to his examination of their doctrine and later alignment with the Anabaptists, seeking rebaptism and rejecting se-baptism (self baptism because he baptized himself without an authority), for which they were called by the shortened form "Baptists" similar to the accusatory appellation "Anabaptist" (re-baptist).  By the way, would you accept the baptism of someone who just decided that since they were truly saved and knew of no like-minded NT churches around them, they just went into a pool, bathtub, or little pond somewhere and dunked themselves?

and was summarizing their statement of faith on Grace.  They believe that the definition of Grace cannot be "unmerited favor".  They believe that grace is bestowed on those who obey.  The hairs to be split over this are worth splitting.  They have added works to the redemption process. 

I am not sure what you have read, since you did not post it.  You later claim that you came to your opinions "honestly" by observation and not through reading books, websites, or sermons.  First, I would like to assure you that I am not being dishonest about my information.  But here you give contradictory information attempting to reference a specific group's statement on grace which you read.  I also have had contact with Mennonites, and have a couple of preacher friends who are members of "Anabaptist" churches in NC and PA.    Another man who I was close friends with at Bible College, who had been our student body President at one time, nearly joined the Amish community.  He and I had a number of intense discussions regarding that.  And then there is that dear Bro. Denny Kenaston of HAC infamy, whose actual teachings I have only recently become acquainted with and have grown to appreciate.  They are quite good and do not match all the accusations I heard of him from his enemies at HAC.  Perhaps you are so confirmed in your own private observations and reading of a single statement of faith that you disagree with,  that you are not interested in what other more widely known and accepted Mennonites would say?

Here is a short article by a Mennonite believer on what he opines a majority of Mennonites believe regarding Salvation.  I think it is representative.  He will also indicate that there are differences in their various denominations, and so he cannot speak for them universally.  Additionally, He will make several references to Helmut Harder's article on Salvation at GAMEO, which you can find here:  http://gameo.org/index.php?title=Salvation  GAMEO is sort of like the Mennonite version of Wikipedia. It stands for "(G)lobal (A)nabaptist (M)ennonite (E)ncyclopedia (O)nline." It is certainly more widely representative of what most Anabaptists / Mennonites believe rather than a single referenced statement of faith we cannot review.  Quoting that article, Anabaptists / Mennonites believe,

' Lordship Salvation '  is a term that is used to describe the doctrinal error of certain charismatic denominations, as well as a few evangelical protestant off shoots.  In this process  a soul must 'turn over a new leaf' and present himself to God for redemption, free from all sin.  As always, this presentation is 'overseen' by the church.  The church declares you 'saved' when your life shows that you no longer sin. 

My brother, I believe you are sorely confused on this one.  Are you reading after Lou "the maniac" Martuneac on this one?  I do believe in what is termed "Lordship Salvation" and have for many years.  It has been my privilege to be involved with helping some authors publish a number of booklets on Repentance and Lordship.  John MacArthur wrote a book, "The Gospel According To Jesus" which has become a classic representation of that truth, and last I checked neither he nor his ghost writer Phil Johnson are "Charismatic." 

Jesus cannot be made Lord, He IS Lord.  The rock that builds the Church in Matt. 16 is not Peter as the first pope, neither is it Bro. Hyles' "Bible as video" representation where Christ is pointing at Peter as the little stone, then pointing back at Himself as the massive boulder since such theatrics are not indicated (or justified) in the text.  Rather, that stone that builds is the divine idea that Jesus is THE CHRIST, the annointed of God, the Son of God, the Messiah, the Lord of all.  Lordship does not make Jesus into anything, but recognizes Him for who He truly is.  Salvation has never been a plan, it is a PERSON -- Jesus the Christ.

This is a deep subject and one better suited to another thread of its own.  When I get time, I would be happy to discuss it with you at greater length.  Btw, would you tell Guy that I said hello?  I don't know why he is not here, unless he is another the admin has warned and threatened away, but I miss him.  I went to his church to meet him once when I was nearby in Lancaster, PA.  (At least I thought it was nearby!  It just didn't look that far away on the map I looked at.)

The 'doctrinal' teaching becomes a scripture twistathon, where every possible transgression of the law, that those 'saved' could commit is spiritualized, so as to deflect any accusation of the presence of sin.
The 'leading of the spirit' becomes the final authority, trumping even plainly written words, such as the forbiddance of women to speak to the assembly, or the behavior of ones children disqualifying their appointment to office.
I started 7 churches in Charismatic dominated areas, and have had many people tell me, 'if you sin, you aren't saved'.  This was followed by an accusation against Baptists of falsely claiming that God cleans up your life, when He moves in, and this is a life long process. Usually some external practice, like smoking, will be pointed out as an example of the lack of salvation evidence in a new Christian's life.  He wil be pestered to 'give in to God, and let Him save you', ubtil he quits smoking (to pacify man) or quits claiming redemption ('I'm still working on it, but God isn't finished with me yet, don't give up on me).  This person is considered a 2nd class church member, and the priviledged 'saved' are lauded openly, in every assembly, where, fat with pride, they strut around enjoying a near Catholic Saint status.  They are gods, because they 'made Jesus the lord of their life'.  Proud, arrogant, boasters, evil speakers, feeding themselves on the flock, who make their converts 2 fold more a child of Hell than themselves, these are.

I grew up down south in a heavily Pentecostal area.  Where I am now, my visitation has introduced me to a number of Pentecostal / Charismatic "pastors" and ex-pastors, one of which is a near neighbor.  In my lifelong experiences with them, I have never yet had one bring up the Lordship of Jesus Christ as an issue to them.  For that matter, I have not heard any comment on the Bible demands for repentance, either.  Those issues I have only heard from Sword of the Lord (SotL) Baptists who follow Curtis Hutson's lead.  But I have run across the same kind of situations you describe above, but rather than being about Lordship, it is about eternal security.  What they call "once in grace, always in grace."  Funny, but your original comment about Anabaptists was about "grace."  Every Pentecostal I have ever run across was hung up on that issue, or tongues, and they always termed it that way about "once in grace, always in grace," rarely OSAS and never, ever "eternal security." 

Because of my view of Lordship, I believe we Christians should obey the commands of Christ and live holy, God fearing lives once we are saved, and because we are saved, not in order to be saved.  And for that, I have been called a "legalist" much more often from that Charismatic crowd than from my own Baptists, whether they be "Particular" or not.  Now, it used to be when I was growing up down south that we had "holiness" denominations that had the Pentecostal glossolalia and I also think had eternal security problems.  Their women always wore dresses, and had beehive hairdos, would not wear makeup or jewelry, etc.  But whether that crowd died out, or just never made it big where the LORD has had me these last few decades, I do not know.  But my personal observations regarding the majority of the Pentecostal / Charismatic bunch is that they are mostly given to ego-driven emotionalism and are very worldly.  That is possibly from their habit, as you point out, of redefining sin into something other than what they are doing, due to their loss of salvation doctrine.  But they definitely are not very driven by any comprehension of Christ's Lordship.

Come to Chicago with me, we'll knock doors, and start a church on the Westside.  It is badly needed there.  You'll see all the l.s. you can stomach, as you help repair the relationship with God, that people who were abused by those 'saints' and have given up all hope of their own salvation, have.  I'll  introduce you to scores of former l.s. abusees, and even a few former abusers.  Let them testify of the liberty that mercy and grace gave them.  Praise God! Sweet liberty! I'm  gonna go shout for awhile.

I would enjoy knocking doors with you, sometime.  But I have already served my sentence in Chicago.  I am less of a big city man and prefer areas where the pace is slower, no one is intimidated by my beard, and I can wear bib overalls and not have someone look at me cockeyed.  Even so, I have no reason to back down or look away when challenged about my daily interviews or door knocking.  I know it is a matter of pride for me, but I like the fact that I have met more of my fellow Baptist pastors in their homes while out door-knocking than those I met through the introductions of others or their contact with me.  I did not design for it to happen that way, it just did.  I have also met a lot of Charismatics, and many Seventh Day Adventists, and Church of Christ.  Also, I have had the misfortune to run across a rising tide of New Agers and agnostics or atheists in my area.  I have found universally that their problems in dominant leadership is not with the Lordship of Christ, but man-centered structure.  I call those who follow some "great one" in their teaching idolaters; but those who follow Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, the LORD are called simply, "Christians."  Your apparent promotion of libertinism is at odds with scriptural calls for obedience.  In Acts 6:7, Romans 1:5 and 16:26, the Bible speaks of the "obedience of faith."  Obedience and faith are not contrary terms.  Neither is righteousness and grace.  According to Titus 2:11,12 grace teaches us some things, none of which are popular with the freebird crowd of today.  But there always is a major problem when people are more willing to follow a man -- even be he a prince -- than they are willing to follow the Lord Christ.

But neither of our performances makes either of us right.  My experience as a pastor has led me to conclude that there are always at least two sides to a story, and it is always best to let one accused of evil have an opportunity to give his own side.  In reviewing what the Anabaptists say of themselves, instead of only listening to what their enemies use wide roller brushes to paint them with, I find a lot to agree with them on.  I do not hesitate to call such "brethren."

If you want to respond, please take your time.  I have a lot to do tomorrow, and after a long, busy Sunday I am already up way too late.  But I wanted to address your post, poorly as this may be.  I have an early day tomorrow with a morning meeting, and then have to leave immediately to a camp meeting for a few days, so I will not be able to read any replies or post back for awhile.  I apologize if any of what I have written in this post seems to come across with ill will or undue sarcasm.  If so, it is not intentional.  I have a lot of respect for you and appreciate many of your posts.  I look forward to meeting you, someday.  Blessings.

 

[prophet]

Thanks for the info.  I'm doing my homework.  Get back with you, when I'm  done.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

What the Calvinists like FSSL are doing is attempting a revisionist history to place all Baptists in a certain doctrinal box.  That cannot truthfully be done for the Baptists, and neither is it so for the Mennonites.  Modern Baptists have been heavily influenced by both Calvinists and Anabaptists.  Those two groups would like us to believe they are polar opposites, and will argue like star bellied sneetches with the plain bellied sneetches.  But there is a lot of history from both those camps under the Baptist umbrella.

Here are the boxes (doctrinal statements) that the original Baptists placed themselves into. You were either a General or Particular Baptist in those days.

General Baptists (Arminian who could lose his salvation): by Helwys 1611 "Men may fall away from grace..."

Particular Baptists (Calvinist who could not lose his salvation): "Can never totally fall away..."

Since we have the stated confessions, the only one revising Baptist history is the one who does not accept these defining documents. PappaBear rejects BOTH confessions and has found himself in some break-off Baptist hybrid group that developed through the past 400 years. Unlike the original Baptists, PappaBear wants to identify himself as coming from the anabaptists.

 

[PappaBear]

Since we have the stated confessions, the only one revising Baptist history is the one who does not accept these defining documents. PappaBear rejects BOTH confessions and has found himself in some break-off Baptist hybrid group that developed through the past 400 years. Unlike the original Baptists, PappaBear wants to identify himself as coming from the anabaptists.

Do you ever speak for yourself?  Apparently not, having noticed you avoid most pertinent questions.  I know that you will find it impossibly hard, but in the future could you let PappaBear speak for what PappaBear rejects or wants to identify with?  Stick with stating that FSSL adopts Calvinism over Baptist doctrine, or how FSSL redefines what makes a Baptist and revises Baptist history to fit into his Calvinistic model.

Just so we can know, how about answer a few questions of what you believe?

1.  Would you consider yourself primarily a Calvinist, or a Baptist?  IOW, when they conflict, which way are you most likely to go?
    1.1 Do you consider yourself a Baptist?  I noticed on another thread that you attended an E-Free church.  Perhaps that answers the first part of this question?
2.  Would you be for receiving believers into your church that were baptized by pouring instead of immersion such as Smyth and Helwys were?
3.  Are you for receiving believers into your church who are self-baptized such as Smyth and Helwys were?

 

[FSSL]

Do you ever speak for yourself?  Apparently not, having noticed you avoid most pertinent questions.  I know that you will find it impossibly hard, but in the future could you let PappaBear speak for what PappaBear rejects or wants to identify with?

So... do you deny the Baptists came from Anabaptists, now?
Do you accept the early Baptist Confessions now?

Just so we can know, how about answer a few questions of what you believe?

Fair enough! Gladly!

1.  Would you consider yourself primarily a Calvinist, or a Baptist?  IOW, when they conflict, which way are you most likely to go?

This is a good question. My theology matches the two London Baptist Confessions with a tiny bit of hesitation on the New Hampshire Baptist Confession.

They are usually in conflict in our area of Michigan. I go to churches that preach the Bible. We attend an Evangelical Presbyterian church during our one month stay in Michigan. The preaching is so good my kids want to listen to the sermons every week even when we visit another church. We will not be able to be members anyways.

1.1 Do you consider yourself a Baptist?  I noticed on another thread that you attended an E-Free church.  Perhaps that answers the first part of this question?

It depends where I am at. In my area of Michigan, the Baptists pretty much reject Calvinistic thought and are IFBXrs. I don't identify with those groups. Detroit has seen a good amount of expansion on this because of the Detroit Baptist Seminary's influence. However, north of Detroit (Flint area) still needs quite a bit of work. I was part of a church planting team in the Flint area. We changed the name to "Bible" church because the "Baptist" distinctives in that area are what version you use, is your wife's dress to her ankles and has your church split numerous times in the past 10 years?

I have been attending an E-Free Church because the Baptist churches we have visited have been a dire disappointment. The Baptist churches (independent and southern) that we have visited did not require us to use our Bible. At the E-Free church, my kids thrived on the biblical preaching and were jazzed about it when we left the services.

I go where the Bible is preached. Sadly, there is a dearth among independent and southern Baptists of good Bible-preaching.

We are now an hour away from the E-Free church, so we are not going to continue. We would make that drive, but it would prevent us from being involved much and anyone we invite would not want to make that trip. We think we have found a good ministry in a Baptist church that is only minutes from us. Pray that this works out.

2.  Would you be for receiving believers into your church that were baptized by pouring instead of immersion such as Smyth and Helwys were?

Since we do not face this issue today, it is moot. But theoretically... sure. As long as the baptism was a testimony of their salvation and not infant.

You do realize that Baptists did baptize by pouring for the first few years of their existence. They were concerned that "believers" were baptized. They eventually got the mode worked out.

3.  Are you for receiving believers into your church who are self-baptized such as Smyth and Helwys were?

I would be for receiving believers into my church if they were baptized by an adulterous, murdering drunk.*** Baptism is not dependent on the one baptizing you (even if it was yourself), but on the reason why you are being baptized.




*** Sorry... I am not speaking about any certain IFBXr preacher. Just imagine an unbelieving drunk. Well... not sure that cleared it up...

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I would be for receiving believers into my church if they were baptized by an adulterous, murdering drunk.***

Now that elicited some strange imagery. 

"I baptish youse in da name of da pappy, shon and some ghosht or shumpin.  Hic.  [BANG] Now youse in paradish.  C'mon shweet cheeksh, les go home."

 

[PappaBear]

Well, a little more open than I expected.  Shows the affrontery that you would dare to speak for what is or is not a Baptist, or alter what is accepted by most Baptists as their history.

 

[PappaBear]

What "affrontery" concerns you?
Will you answer my two questions now?

That a peripheral baptist would have the "effrontery" (new spelling ... man, I'm getting old) to attempt to define what is or is not a Baptist, or to skew its history away from what is normally accepted by real Baptists.

Your first question, of course not.  I, like Smyth, reject your se-baptists and the mode of affusion.  As true of many Baptist historians, some even cited by me in contradiction to your unsubstantiated pronouncements, I identify Anabaptists as among the Baptists.

The answer to your second question is "not necessarily."  I identify with historic Baptists who are non-creedal.  The Bible is our creed, unlike Calvinists who are doing everything they can to remove scriptural authority as a foundation for our practices.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The answer to your second question is "not necessarily."  I identify with historic Baptists who are non-creedal.  The Bible is our creed, unlike Calvinists who are doing everything they can to remove scriptural authority as a foundation for our practices.

Martin Luther -- you know, Mr. Sola Scriptura -- obliterated the concept of free will in his book "Bondage of the Will", which preceded Calvin.  And he did it using scriptural authority.