Talk:Free Will Baptist

Untitled
"Free Will Baptists believe that once salvation is "lost", it can be regained through repentance."

This is a rather vague, inaccurate statement. Perhaps a better way of stating this would be: Free Will Baptists believe that if someone "loses" their salvation through apostasy that they can turn back to God before they die. However, if they do not repent, dieing in their trespasses, they would end up in Hell.

---Yes, this is closer but, having been a Free Will Baptist for many years and involved in ministry, I believe there's an even better way to put this. Without delving too deeply into theology, Free Will Baptist doctrine is heavily influenced by the works of Arminius (as oppossed to Calvin). "Salvation" is neither "lost" nor "gained" by anything man does. "Salvation" was provided for all by Christ's atoning death on the cross. Because of "Original Sin" all humanity is naturally in a fallen state, prone to sin, and bound for Hell. Christ tells us that in order to be saved from our sins (and consequent eternity in Hell) and gain eternal life with Him, man must be "born again" by accepting Christ's atoning death, burial and subsequent resurrection.

Therefore, it is not "salvation" that is "lost" and "saved" but rather the Souls of Men (Humanity) that are "lost" and "saved". Now, Free Will Baptists believe that a person is "saved" through their "Free Will" acceptence of Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour and continual acknledgement of Him as Lord. He/She may at some future point, excercise their "Free Will" and return to a life of unrepentant sin, thereby indicating the condition of their soul (in rebellion and rejecting Jesus Christ as Lord of their life). If a person dies in this state, they die "lost", having rejected Salvation, and suffer eternity in Hell.

However, as the Bible says, "God is willing that none should perish, but all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). If this person should realize the error of his ways and turn again from his sinful lifestyle and practices with a repentant heart, thereby again acknowledging Christ as Lord and Master, he shall be restored to a saving relationship with God through Jesus Christ and be counted among the "saved".--- William

I've noticed other Religion/Denomination pages have a section title something like "Famous Southern Baptists" or "Notable Lutherans", etc. What does everybody think about adding such a section here? It could include historical figures such as Benjamin Randall, John Colby, President Lincoln's mother, etc. and current influential leaders/speakers in the Denomination (David Crowe, Randy Williams, Trimon Messner, etc).

Also, I have an autobiography of Benjamin Randall and some other source material on Benjamin Randall and John Colby. I would like to start a Benjamin Randall page but I'm not sure how. I've lurked here (read: spent way too much time here) for years, make a few minor edits and suggestions now and then, but never started a new page. Where can a learn how? Is there a template or something like that? WilliamThweatt 03:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Wording on feet washing statement
I'd like to start a discussion for rewording a paragraph in the article.

A recent edit changed the third paragraph of "Distinguishing Doctrinal Features" to read: "Free Will Baptists also observe The Washing of the Saints' Feet as a third ordinance of the church along with Baptism and Communion, a rite common among other evangelical groups but not practiced by the majority of Baptist denominations, but initially practiced by all Baptist groups."

The older version read: "Free Will Baptists also observe The Washing of the Saints' Feet as a third ordinance of the church along with Baptism and Communion, a rite common among other evangelical groups but not practiced by the majority of Baptist denominations."

I am currently compiling material to publish a book on the history of feet washing among Baptists. Stating that feet washing was "initially practiced by all Baptist groups" is somewhat misleading. In America, some feet washing can be found historically among most, if not all, Baptists, but sometimes only as a minority practice. It was practiced by both Particular and General Baptists in England, but it was never universal among either of them. It was a major rite among the Continental Anabaptists -- though again never universal, and this also leads into the ongoing debate of whether English Baptists are successors of the Continental Anabaptists, which goes beyond the scope of this article. I am pro- feet washing, so this is not motivated by a desire to belittle the practice of feet washing -- just to get a more accurate and better worded statement. Ideas? - Rlvaughn 19:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello, Rlvaughn. I wrote what you quoted as the "older version".  I noticed the newer version a couple days ago.  I don't agree with it, either, but thought I'd give it a little time to see what others think (apparently, this article isn't read much, though).  I have done research in the history of feet washing (don't worry...I'm not writing a book...just a curious Free Will Baptist scholar), not into the history of "all Baptist groups", but I believe the statement to be inaccurate.  It may have been practiced by various sub-groups at various times throughout the history of every Baptist group but, as you say, I strongly doubt it was ever universally observed as a Third Ordinance as this sentance indicates.  I am going to revert to the old version.  The contributing editor is welcome to chime in here and re-add the statement, but the burden of proof would be on him.  A reputable citation is in order for such a sweeping statement to be included.--WilliamThweatt 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks William, good points. There is quite of bit of background of feet washing among those churches that would form the Southern Baptist Convention. But it never was a majority practice; most who did practice it did not call it an ordinance or make it a test of fellowship; and some in the churches that practiced it never agreed with it. By the turn of the (20th) century it had probably died out among the majority of those that had practiced it -- although there are some SBC churches in north Georgia (and perhaps other places) that still observe the rite. Some "non-SBC" missionary Baptists in my area kept up the practice until the late 1930s. BTW, since you mention you have done research into the history of feet washing, do you have any exceptional sources/resources that you would recommend? I am looking at (though not necessarily using) anything I can find. I really like records from individual church and local association minutes, such as notes about the local practice and articles of faith, but these are some of the hardest and most time-consuming to research. In U.S. Baptist history, I am keying on the groups not usually known to have observed the rite -- IOW, almost "everyone" knows that Primitive Baptists and Free Will Baptists practice feet washing, but many would and do assume that Missionary Baptists never did. - Rlvaughn 18:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For vigorous discussion about Free will Baptist beliefs, visit freebaptist.net 193.60.91.57 13:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)James M. Leonard

Does this phrase belong in the article? "( left out KJV ONLY)" Mmlj4 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Terminology question
"including the Southern Baptist Convention and her offshoots" - why "her" and not "its"? To me (with no knowledge of this Church) it looks very odd. 86.136.255.69 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I have changed it.--William Thweatt Talk | Contribs 19:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

History Question
I'm not so sure that the vast majority of modern FWBs are descended from the Palmer line.

Almost all of the Ohio FWB churches are descended from the Randall line. After the 1911 merger, only 5-10 churches in southern Ohio (Scioto Association) remained FWBs. These were descended from the Randall line. However, the 150+ churches in Ohio newly formed in the 1940s-1960s were not started by Palmer line FWBs. Nearly all the 20th century Ohio churches were transplants from KY and WV, and these churches largely owe their origin to the work in the early 1900s of the Scioto Association in Ohio which were, in fact, Randall churches. Perhaps the same could be said of MI, IN, and perhaps even IL. I think also that the OK churches had their roots in the Palmer movement, but I'm not sure. Thus, I suggest removing the phrase "vast majority." I suppose the pertinent sentence could read, "A majority of FWBs are descended from the Palmer line, though a strong minority of FWBs are descended from the Randall line" or some such.

--Jim Leonard arminiansbaptist.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.139.134 (talk) 13:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Article
I've written my own article answering the question "Who Are Free Will Baptists." http://arminianbaptist.blogspot.com/2009/02/who-are-free-will-baptists.html I'm sure that the WIKI article is superior and probably more reliable, but I think that I may have one or two unique perspectives which might be worth while for someone wanting to know more.

James M. Leonard arminianbaptist.blogspot.com

Links to historic theological statements of faith pertinent to FWB history should be provided. Forlinianslip (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Qoute "Free Will Baptists believe that once salvation is "lost", it can be regained through repentance."

This is a rather vague, inaccurate statement. Perhaps a better way of stating this would be: Free Will Baptists believe that if someone "loses" their salvation through apostasy that they can turn back to God before they die. However, if they do not repent, dieing in their trespasses, they would end up in Hell. end Qoute

This statement above may be taught and held by some Free Will Baptist,but this is not the Denominations teaching. Free Will Baptist believe and teach that once a person commits apostasy ie:"turns from their faith in Christ", Faith in Christ being the condition set forth by God in Scripture to be saved, They cannot repent and be restored Hebrews 6:4-6.

While Christians are not free from sin and some do fall into grevious sins, the sinner does not lose his salvation based on sin. A Christian can only return to a state of condemnation by actually turning from Christ. While it is true that sin leads a person down the road that "can" end in apostasy, it does not have to end in apostasy. The Christian living in sin can repent and be restored to full relationship with God. If the sinner does not repent and desires to live in sin, at some point known only to God and the person, they will cross the line of faith and reject Christ.

Dszalla (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Read more on this subject at abundantgracetoday.com