53 thoughts on “Finding Baptists In The Bible”

  1. “we’ve met some Independent Baptists who are just whacked out of their minds”

    You mean like claiming that the Wizard of Oz is the wickedest movie ever made? That kind of crazy?

  2. 1. Mr. Klein?? Was this a blooper? 😉

    2. You can trace IFB churches all the way back to Jesus Christ? I want to read about an IFB church in the year 854AD- yes, a church that did not just preach believers’ baptism, but also did NOT preach dualism (eg. a God of good and a God of evil), unitarianism (“there is no trinity”), or some other unorthodox doctrine. It is very interesting that some Baptist Briders claim groups like the Cathari to be predecessors of modern day hell-preachin’-KJV-exegetin’ fundamennal bapdists. A cursory Wikipedia reading on this group would do. 🙂

    3. You want to take the same message Enoch had? You have “fallen from grace”! You don’t need the whole Torah, the Old Testament or EVEN the New Testament for this.

    4. I am a preacher that believes in Calvinism and NOBODY gave me a clear presentation of the gospel before I got saved. God brought conviction to my heart and I looked for an online tract that presented Christ clearly.

  3. Boy, this dude would be in serious trouble if he went to a church before 1900 and discovered there was NO THING as a fundamentalist, or if he went back another 100 years, and discovered no dispensational premillenialism. 🙂

  4. @Jordan I replayed the end like 3 times on that. VERY strange analogy. I’m assuming kill was just being used metaphorically. I’ve never liked using that kind of terms as metaphor. Glad I’m not the only one that that that was REALLY strange. Even stranger than the nut job talking about other fundamentalists being the “real crazies”. @Darrell I doubt the Wizard of Oz guy would strike this guy as being “crazy”.

  5. @Darrell I doubt the Wizard of Oz guy would strike this guy as being “crazy”.

    Since it’s the senior pastor that he was talking to who preached the sermon, I would reckon not.

  6. Oh, didn’t realize the same church. Even funnier w/ that knowledge. I clearly need to stay up on my IFB heirarchy! 🙂

  7. This kind of reckless disregard for church history, not to mention sound exegesis, is criminal.

  8. This is ridiculous. These guys claim so many things – but none of them stand up historically or even biblically.

  9. Stick. a. needle. in. my. arm. and. make. the. hurting. stop. I like “Hey, Jude,” Jude Law, “Law and Order,” “Ordinary People,” “People Who Need People,” but I don’t think I like Jude the Fundamentalist.

  10. Sadly, the myth that Baptists can trace their history back to Jesus is alive and well in fundie circles.

    The only churchs that can legitamately claim that they were founded by Jesus and the Apostles is the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Catholic Church historically verifiable list of Popes that go all the way back to Peter. The Orthodox church broke off in 1054, but can also claim an historical and verifiable list of Bishops.

    1. The idea that Peter was the first Pope is absurd and historically untenable. Nobody except for traditionalist Catholics believe that. The early church underwent evolution over time to develop into the modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches.

      Your own claims of apostolic succession are about as absurd as the Landmarkists and other cults.

  11. @LK
    The blame is certainly on both sides 🙂

    I hope someday that Catholic and Orthodox will be united in the one true faith someday.

    1. In order to join the true faith, they would have to abandon much of their own dogma and embrace Reformed Theology. The Papacy would have to completely dismantle as well.

        1. Of course they never will, so that is why those two churches will never know the true faith.

  12. ok i just want to know what happened to JTR…….. his comments always made my day.

  13. I think this dude is at the same church as that Grice dude that preaches about “Wizard of nonsense.” I think that church rarely experiences Bible preaching… it’s like well “let me convince you that this is in the Bible even though I pulled it outta my butt” which is a-typical of hardcore fundy churches.

    1. That he wasn’t a Baptist isn’t in dispute. But certainly you don’t believe all those medieval Catholic legends about St. Patrick? Much less is known about the man than your Greek Orthodox tradition would have you believe.

  14. i remember, even as an ifb, laughing at the teaching that john was the first baptist…

    as for premils prior to darby, if i didn’t have a broken elbow and wrist on different hands i would write up some stuff. ryrie has a good book about early premil stuff.

    God bless

    1. There were premillenialists before Darby, but *not* dispensationalists. Dispensationalism is an unorthodox theological innovation of the nineteenth century.

  15. John the baptist couldn’t have been a real Baptist. He told his congregation to go to another leader. The only number he was preoccupied with was “one”. He had nothing to say about himself.

    1. Most Baptists are not in the IFB movement. Most Baptists point people to Christ and are not self-exalting. Careful that you do not reveal your own ignorance.

  16. Since Jesus (the half-brother of Jude) commanded his disciples to turn the other cheek and love their enemies, I highly doubt that Jude would have killed any Calvinists.

  17. Johnny the Baptist says: “Some places I go they say we preach no DOCTRINE. How stupid can you be: Hell is a doctrine! The Blood of Christ is a doctrine! When you get saved, you will preach DOCTRINE!! P.S. Baptist is not a denomination but a DOCTRINE! AMEN.”


    When people say, “Johnny, What kind of Baptist are you? Southern, Independent or Free Will?” I say, “I am proud to be a FREE MEAL Baptist!”


  18. Does this guy really think that Presbyterians trace their church back to Calvin?

    And Morgan, we Anglicans have the same lineage as the Romans and Orthodox 🙂

    Actually, I think the only church with a direct claim is the (Orthodox) Church of Jerusalem.

    1. If a church group goes apostate, then it no longer has a claim to be the heirs of the New Testament early church.

      By the way, do you know that Catholics and Orthodox reject the Anglican claim to apostolic succession? In reality, AP itself is a ridiculous claim.

  19. Even as a fundie, I knew that you were full of poo if you were trying to convince me that these Old Testament characters were good ole’ fashioned saved, sanctified, and separated Baptists. I have a really hard time imagining Esther approaching the king in a pair of culottes and white keds.

  20. @ Mark: Every sin-hatin’, King James Bible wavin’ Baptist preecha who knows what he is doing will twist the sacred desk microphone down and out of the way. Everyone knows the mounted pulpit microphone is only for singing and teaching. Preechin is done with a wireless mike, so the preecha can get in the congregation’s face while still recording every word for posterity.

  21. Of course Jude was IFB. After all, John the Baptist was Baptist (duhh). And Jesus was baptized by John, so what does that make our Lord? Hint: A Baptist. Well, if Jude was Jesus’ brother then obviously he was an old-fashioned, sin-hating, Bible-preaching, buffet-raiding, clip mic-wearing, Fundamental, Baptist preacher.

    In addition, since Jesus baptized R. A. Torrey and this guy owns a copy of The Fundamentals, he can trace his history back to Jesus.

  22. @TomK are you implying (by omission) that our Lord & Savior wasn’t a 1611-KJVO? JOT & TITTLE!

  23. @Rob I never saw His Bible, but I know Jesus owned many white dress shirts and shouted every time He preached. I assume it was a KJV.

    (Lord, forgive me.)

  24. The smartest thing that guy ever did was push that microphone down. Maybe a few poor souls there were unable to hear him spew his ignorance.

  25. Baptism is a Jewish rite. (And probably some other religion’s rite before that.)

    As for the KJV, I like to imagine Buckingham sitting on James’ lap – “Ooh, James, put some more abominations in it!”

  26. Well we’ve had our share of fundy trolls, it was inevitable that we pick up an atheist one, I guess.

  27. Ah, yes. Jude wrote down the basis of our fundamental faith by quoting from the apocryphal book of 1 Enoch.

    1. That Jude quoted from 1 Enoch does not diminish the inspired status of Jude, nor does it elevate 1 Enoch to any kind of “deuterocanonical” status. Remember that Paul quoted from some Greek writers of his day.

  28. While it would be anachronistic to say that there were “Baptists” in the Bible, we Baptists do believe that the both John the Baptist and the New Testament church baptized by immersion, as this is suggested by the Greek word “baptizo” meaning “to immerse”. This is why Baptist churched were founded in England in the Seventeenth century, and why the Anabaptists (re-baptizers) started before that. The Eastern Orthodox church retained immersion as the mode of baptism, but changed the subject to infants and introduced baptismal regeneration when the wider church did.

    1. And yet somehow Paul seemed to think the meaning of the baptism was more important than the actual form.

      1. It is. Only the baptismal regeneration teaching is heretical.

        I didn’t come here to argue about baptism. My above comment was posted in order to defend the Baptist practice. Remember that the Baptists began in seventeenth century England and had nothing in common with the IFB, which finds its beginnings with J. Frank Norris at the earliest.

Comments are closed.