The Baptists...

[Elijah]

Just curious, i knew some baptists that doesnt allow their men members to have long hairs and for women shouldn't wear pants or short pants. I think manipulating or imposing a dos and donts rule for their members is cultic in nature. I also met other baptists that doesnt have this weird "rule." I also have a friend that their church only uses King James Bible, and i have also another baptist friend that it's okay to use other versions such as NIV, NKJV etc.

[ron2t]

Originally posted by Elijah
Just curious, i knew some baptists that doesnt allow their men members to have long hairs and for women shouldn't wear pants or short pants. I think manipulating or imposing a dos and donts rule for their members is cultic in nature. I also met other baptists that doesnt have this weird "rule." I also have a friend that their church only uses King James Bible, and i have also another baptist friend that it's okay to use other versions such as NIV, N KJV etc.

you are correct. Most independent fundamental baptist churches lean that way. But what is long hair? They like the men to have short hair(off the ear and taperd in the back) and the want the females to dress modestly, dresses and kulottes only.... no pants and yes we prefer KJV. I currently attend a SBC church.

[Elijah]

I also heard some preachers or christians pray for the "salvation of the baptists" the same way they prayed for the catholics. Are some baptists sects cultic or something?

[Brandan Kraft]

Originally posted by Elijah
Just curious, i knew some baptists that doesnt allow their men members to have long hairs and for women shouldn't wear pants or short pants. I think manipulating or imposing a dos and donts rule for their members is cultic in nature. I also met other baptists that doesnt have this weird "rule." I also have a friend that their church only uses King James Bible, and i have also another baptist friend that it's okay to use other versions such as NIV, NKJV etc.

When you say "baptist" you could mean just about anything these days.

Well, I agree with you that a church shouldn't impose made up rules on its congregation... However, the Bible speaks against men having long hair (1 Cor 11:14) and men and women dressing modestly. So what is modest? I'd say it's anything that covers the body and does not draw attention to itself. So are pants on a woman modest? If the entire congregation wears dresses (and were adament about it), then I would advise my wife to wear a dress. Why? For the sake of the brethren and to keep them from stumbling. Also, in that situation wearing pants would draw attention to oneself and then that person would no longer be living out the principals of Scripture.

My wife wears pants. She says they are more comfortable for her. My church hasn't mentioned anything about it - http://www.gracebaptistchapel.org (my wife isn't in that picture on the home page because she's the one taking it) - and most of the other women wear dresses or skirts. Why? I imagine it's just their routine. I happen to like skirts and dresses on women better anyway - makes them look more feminine to me. But that's just my opinion.

Also I can't imagine a church these days recommending the NIV as a legitimate translation for primary bible study. I still use it and find it useful as a commentary; but I'd suggest sticking with a literal translation like the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and etc. for your bible study. However with that being the case, I wouldn't call a KJV only church a cult. The KJV is definitely a fine bible translation - and if there are some that are so convicted for whatever reasons that insist on the use of the KJV ONLY - then they are standing up for what they think is right. If I found myself a member of a KJV only church, I'd probably adapt and use the KJV publicly and my NKJV privately even though I strongly disagreed with their belief. But that's of course not until they heard what I thought was the truth. That is a non-essential belief that I think believers can compromise on for the sake of the brethren.

[ron2t]

Originally posted by grebel
When you say "baptist" you could mean just about anything these days.

Well, I agree with you that a church shouldn't impose made up rules on its congregation... However, the Bible speaks against men having long hair (1 Cor 11:14) and men and women dressing modestly. So what is modest? I'd say it's anything that covers the body and does not draw attention to itself. So are pants on a woman modest? If the entire congregation wears dresses (and were adament about it), then I would advise my wife to wear a dress. Why? For the sake of the brethren and to keep them from stumbling. Also, in that situation wearing pants would draw attention to oneself and then that person would no longer be living out the principals of Scripture.

My wife wears pants. She says they are more comfortable for her. My church hasn't mentioned anything about it - http://www.gracebaptistchapel.org (my wife isn't in that picture on the home page because she's the one taking it) - and most of the other women wear dresses or skirts. Why? I imagine it's just their routine. I happen to like skirts and dresses on women better anyway - makes them look more feminine to me. But that's just my opinion.

Also I can't imagine a church these days recommending the NIV as a legitimate translation for primary bible study. I still use it and find it useful as a commentary; but I'd suggest sticking with a literal translation like the KJV, NKJV, NAS, and etc. for your bible study. However with that being the case, I wouldn't call a KJV only church a cult. The KJV is definitely a fine bible translation - and if there are some that are so convicted for whatever reasons that insist on the use of the KJV ONLY - then they are standing up for what they think is right. If I found myself a member of a KJV only church, I'd probably adapt and use the KJV publicly and my NKJV privately even though I strongly disagreed with their belief. But that's of course not until they heard what I thought was the truth. That is a non-essential belief that I think believers can compromise on for the sake of the brethren.

[Elijah]

A baptist church that i know of here in the Philippines uses KJV. Modern english is 3rd or 4th language for majority of the people here, do this type of baptist church teach their congregation old english?

[disciple]

Originally posted by Elijah
A baptist church that i know of here in the Philippines uses KJV. Modern english is 3rd or 4th language for majority of the people here, do this type of baptist church teach their congregation old english?

we have one of these churches in my town and they don't speak in elizabethian english (although some pray in that language)! LOL

the thing about baptists is that it is the largest and perhaps most divergent group within protestantism. baptist refers merely to their position on baptism (i.e., that we baptize believers by immersion) and may refer to nothing else. many bible churches and non-denominational churches today are also "baptistic" in that respect although would not call themselves Baptists.

what you are describing is a specific sect within baptists as ron2t mentioned called fundamentalists. they are separatists and usually are non-denominational (which means they've almost created a denomination of their own) since they've separated from all other baptist denominations (e.g., CBA, GARBC, Regular Baptists, SBC, etc.) since they think they're too liberal. this is what that church in our area did. it used to be associated with the denomination of my church (i.e., GARBC) until we became too liberal in their view (since we didn't adhere to all of the do's and don'ts that they prescribe and are not KJV only, etc.).

i would probably try and stay away from this group since in my experience they destroy everything in their wake and have set themselves up as the judge of everyone else. i have a friend from high school that goes to this church and he was less than kind when he heard that i wasn't KJV-only.

[Brandan Kraft]

Well I don't believe in any denominations period! Hmmm, new thread?

[disciple]

Originally posted by grebel
Well I don't believe in any denominations period! Hmmm, new thread?

sounds like an interesting discussion...have at it!

[ron2t]

Sorry to grebel for accidently copying your statement but your words expressed what i actually wanted to say but i dont type well. as for you last statement, i like to think of myself as a biblecist who attends a baptist church because they preach the bible.

[ron2t]

Last week I went to a non denom bible church and it was interesting. I went fully expecting this to be a charismatic church, but it was very sedate and midway thru th sermon I realized it was a soverign grace bible church.

[Brandan Kraft]

Hi Ron,

Sometimes you just never know what you're gonna find when you visit a church. It's pretty neat that you stumbled across a sovereign grace church because there just aren't too many of them!

Brandan

[ron2t]

Originally posted by grebel
Hi Ron,

Sometimes you just never know what you're gonna find when you visit a church. It's pretty neat that you stumbled across a sovereign grace church because there just aren't too many of them!

Brandan

stumbled? thats what I thought at first. here i am looking for a church (baptist of course) and God sends me to this church that my wife's employer attends. now i' thinkin its charismatic but i follow the Lords leading and He gives me what i've been looking for ......... heavenly.... i'll be going there again this sunday.

[Brandan Kraft]

Yes, Divine Providence is something to behold. Do you know if this sovereign grace church is baptistic? It may very well be a baptist church (a lot of sovereign grace baptist churches I know don't use the name "baptist" in the church name.)

[ron2t]

Originally posted by grebel
Yes, Divine Providence is something to behold. Do you know if this sovereign grace church is baptistic? It may very well be a baptist church (a lot of sovereign grace baptist churches I know don't use the name "baptist" in the church name.)

I'm not sure but I'll get more info this sunday, did I ever tell you that I found this web site by following you home from Lucianne.com. You said something(apparently of interest to me) so i clicked on your name and saw your home page and here i am. thanks ron

[Brandan Kraft]

Ya know I recall someone e-mailing me, but I lost that e-mail when my computer crashed. I haven't posted on there in a while, and only post occaisionally - usually it's out of sync with everyone

Brandan

[AbsoluteBubba]

Hi,

I recently received an e-mail from a "friend", in which He said

Actually the "Baptist Churches" can and have traced themselves back to the time of Christ/ aka the time of "John the Baptizer/ John the Baptist"
Info c/o "The Trail of Blood..." by J. M. Carrol

Has anyone read this booklet? A few points in it are

• Baptists are not protestant, because they did not "come out" of the Roman Catholic Church.
• The inspired scriptures, and they only, in fact, the New Testament and that only, to be the rule and guide of faith and life, not only for the church as an organization, but for each individual member of that organization.
• Baptist's in history have gone by names such as Montanist, Tertullianists, Novationists, Paterines, Donatists, Cathari, Paulicians, and Ana Baptists; and a little later, Petro-Brussians, Arnoldists, Henricians, Albigenses, and Waldenses.

Any thoughts?

Grace & Peace,
Absolute Bubba

[disciple]

Originally posted by AbsoluteBubba
I recently received an e-mail from a "friend", in which He saidHas anyone read this booklet? ...Any thoughts?

IMO this is garbage. it is generally recognized by most honest historians as revisionist history. it is known as baptist successionism and the primary interest or focus is to (negatively) disassociate and distance themselves from any denominations or anything roman catholic and (positively) trace their lineage directly to the apostles, Christ, and john the baptist. it has been shown to be in error and many of those groups listed do not even fall within the pail of historical orthodox (little 'o') Christianity, not to mention even the fact that they wouldn't qualify as holding to baptist distinctives. the only real similarity is that their own baptisms were exclusive from the roman catholic church's (some which held to adult immersion only some who didn't) just because they saw the roman catholic church as corrupt. in other words, since the roman catholic church was corrupt in these sect's minds they did not accept a roman catholic baptism as valid and therefore had their own. whether it was believers' baptism by immersion or not was not really the issue.

[Brandan Kraft]

I would slightly disagree with you disciple although I mostly agree with you. God has ALWAYS maintained his remnant, and while I would agree with you that much of it is revisionist, I believe there is a hint of truth in it.

And, the original baptists certainly weren't protestants, baptists adopted much of their theology from the reformers, and I guess you could classify them as protestants. These days, though I really don't like to classify ANYONE as protestants. Presbyterians are no longer "protesting" Rome. They no longer have any ambition to "reform" Rome either.

[Brandan Kraft]

The origin of the Baptists...

This is a good book - but I disagree with a lot of it

http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=291

I included it in the library because there is a lot of obscure stuff in it...

Here is a good article on the topic that I also like...

Baptists: Their Historical Relation to the Protestant Reformation
And the Roman Catholic Church
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstud...gy/baptism.htm

Brandan