#credo-baptists

It's plenty of other things too.

When we are arguing that Antizionism is Antisemitism, I at least used to fall into the trap of thinking Antizionism is the only thing associated with Antisemitism that Leftists fail to see as being inseparable from Antisemitism at least via Guilt by Association. But I've come to realize it's really not.

First there is being Anti Circumcision.

It's incredibly normal to see Leftists and even Libertarians argue for making Infant Circumcision illegal with no religious exemptions because "it's a procedure the Baby can't consent to" and I'm like "so is having the Ambilocal Cord cut".

The Medical arguments against Circumcision are all nonsense, actual studies keep showing Circumcision to be medically beneficial, that includes some benefits only useful when it's done soon after birth like how it reduces the risk of UTI.

The first time I ever read an Anti-Circumcision article it made an absurd claim then when Jews perform Circumcisions the Rabbis lick the blog off the babies circumcizer member. I instantly recognized the invocation of Blood Libel.

Just look at the scandal involving that Silent Hill Fandom Wiki Editor to see how quickly fixating on a dislike of Circumcision leads to Conspiratorial madness.

As a Gentile and a Paulian Christian, I don't believe Paul ever intended for his followers to stop Circumcising newborns. All of the allegedly Anti-Circumcision stuff in the New Testament is solely about the issue of imposing it on adult converts. In fact as a Credo-Baptist I see there being a direct link between the origins of Infant-Baptism and the abandonment of Circumcision, when you're doing Infant Circumcision what Infant Baptism is supposed to do becomes redundant. Plus most of the argument for there being a Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism is tied to the false doctrine that Baptism replaces Circumcision. The only time Paul talks about Baptism and Circumcision near each other is when talking about how for both the physical ritual is a symbol something spiritual, it is absolutely not saying one replaces the other.

The other issue I want to talk about is Marcionism.

People who literally believe in the fullness of Marcionite of Gnostic Theology are a niche minority. But they do exist, I sometimes watch a YouTube video made by one, and in one the Gnostic said "you know YHWH is a bad due because he loves Blood, the bloody bloody blood" once again people can't stop themselves from evoking Blood Libel.

However mild Marcionism is way more common then you think. Whenever an Atheist specifically uses the name YHWH for the God they view as Evil. Whenever Christians God acted differently in the "Old Testament".

The gist of the Marcionite way of thinking about The Bible is pretty mainstream actually.

How much theological or denominational variety is there in Bob Jones University’s White-Listed churches?

Exactly all of them practice credo-baptism. 

Andrew Franseen’s Grace Bible attempts to sound all hip-and-Reformed by citing the Gospel Coalition’s “Confessional Statement,” but they demur when it comes right down to the soteriology. 

We believe that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordained by the Lord Jesus himself. The former is connected with entrance [of believers] into the new covenant community, the latter with ongoing covenant renewal. 

Sorry, Andrew. That doesn’t cut it. That’s not a Covenant community.

And, of course, Faith Free Pres and its Korean off-shoot are supposed to be the one church in the BJU milieu to offer some theological variety. They, too, pussyfoot and fudge the facts.

The Free Presbyterian Church has always had some distinctive characteristics that make its fellowship unusual. Called to raise a testimony in Northern Ireland at a time when modernism, or liberalism as it is also called, seemed to have gained a stranglehold on Irish Presbyterianism, it recognized that many who should be standing together in the battle for truth were needlessly separated because of doctrinal differences that did not affect the heart of the gospel message. One such issue was baptism, and another was eschatology; on both it adopted an innovative policy.

On baptism, the Free Presbyterian Church admitted that four centuries of debate and discussion since the Reformation had not brought us any nearer a resolution of the questions that divided baptists from paedobaptists. Therefore, to provide for a continuing discussion of their differences within the fellowship of the gospel, the Free Presbyterian Church adopted a position similar to that taken by the Calvinistic Methodists in 1874 whereby it embraced both paedobaptists and believers’-baptists in its communion. In other words, the Free Presbyterian Church did not see paedobaptism, as many Presbyterians do, as essential to the system of Covenant Theology set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith. Repudiating the theory of baptismal regeneration, it allowed brethren to worship and serve together in mutual respect even though they differed on the mode of baptism and on the relation of believers’ children to baptism.

My husband and I were immersed as credo-Baptists and my children were sprinkled as pedo-Baptists, and we’re all accepted into our PCA Household of Faith. All my BJU friends in the PCA have experienced the same. We orthodox Protestants all affirm one baptism, so the controversy that FFP claims it is rising above simply isn’t there.

Westminster doesn’t affirm baptismal regeneration either, so that’s another mis-statement of the facts. For Presbies, baptism is a sign, just like it is for credo-Baptists. You’re thinking of Lutherans, Faith Free. Not Presbies. 

Strange that you would get that so very wrong. 

How many BJU White-Listed Churches have other-than-Baptist in the name or the distinctives? 

Three. Faith-Free, its Korean branch, and a little Hope Presbyterian on Sharon Drive. Don’t get too excited about that last one. It’s “unaffiliated.” Which essentially means it’s not Presbyterian at all. 

And how many BJU White-Listed Churches self-describe as “independent” or “free”? Guess.

Okay, okay, okay. Surely there is SOME variety in the BJU White List, right? 

Well, there’s one issue that will get some variation.

14 of the 79 churches on which we have information describe themselves as KJVO or KJV-strongly-preferred.