Are these guys Baptists?

I disagree Tuor! I think the TRUE Baptist churches will NOT endorse sodomy and will continue to baptise by immersion as we always have. In fact, I expect (and the furor on this board gives testimony) that this Texas Sodomy decision will rile up Christians to fight even harder against acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal'.

Diane

 

Nils -

Almost every subject I have ever discussed with you concerning a Baptist distinctive turns to a condemnation of those churches who accept homosexuality. I will tell you again that there is certain scholarship, faulty as it may be, that asserts that the term "arsenokoites" (sodomites in 1Timothy 1:10) and such related words relate to male, pagan temple prostitutes. Again, I do not subscribe to this view nor does my church nor any churches and organizations with which we affiliate. Nonetheless, the fact that such scholarship exists is irrefutable.

Sin is sin. There are churches that are Baptists that do not believe in allowing remarriage after divorce. I would be disqualified from their congregations, but I think it's pretty obvious to anyone who reads my posts that I am unquestionably a staunch Baptist. There are Baptist churches that believe in dress codes. Makeup, hair length, jewelry, female clergy, Bible versions, and so on and so on but that does not exclude other churches from being Baptists even though they may view these things I list as sin. It is a matter of adherence to the distinctives that we have listed before. That is what makes one a Baptist.

The Primitive Baptists believe in feet washing as an ordinance, but they recognize the rest of the Baptist community. The Free Will Baptist do not believe in the Doctrine of the Preservation of the Saints (OSAS), but they recognize the rest of us.

As for your assertion that the acceptance of homosexuality has been around longer than the non-baptizing Christians, that is I suppose true, but as I mentioned, the Quakers, who have been around about the same amount of time as we do not baptize so it is not a new notion. For such a doctrine to come into the Baptist community would require a new and unique precedent.

To be honest, I don't remember hearing about homosexuality when I was a kid. It was as foreign a concept to me as computers and fuel injection. There was little need for anyone to teach us about it. That may be due to the fact that I grew up in this very rural community. Ignorance was, I guess, bliss.

It has only been in the past couple decades that the homosexual PR machine kicked into gear. It is obvious what it is doing to the Episcopalian community now. They will likely schism over this issue. We, as Baptists believing in church autonomy, are pre-schismed. As Amos said, "Do two walk together, unless they have agreed to meet?"

You see, "Baptists" is not so much a definition of specific Biblical doctrine, but rather a description of a set of beliefs that guide our philosophy, those being the Baptist Distinctives. Baptism, by immersion, of a professing Christian is one of them.

 

The "B" in that acronym should be "Bible as sole authority of faith and practice." Must have been a typo in the example I cut and pasted.

There is another list I prefer using but it never really caught on, maybe because it's not so catchy. It was compiled by rlvaughn after a discussion when I was fairly new to the board. If you wish to see the thread, it's in the 2002 archive, Password: 2002:

As for standing up and condemning homosexuality, yes, it is done. Just as idolatry, abortion, favoritism, and a host of other sins. So not to worry, Satan does not have a hold on me.

 

So do you feel that baptism by pouring or sprinkling is unaccepatable? Or is that also debatable?

 

Ah, yes, the vices of the flesh!

It's a hard list to avoid. It's man's inclination. We all fight against them and only overcome them through aid of the Spirit. But everyone backslides, agreed? All do indeed sin and come short of God's glory. All have transgressed the Spirit by succumbing to the flesh. All are in need of the Justfication offered by Christ's work on the Cross.

By the unexhaustive list provided by Paul, those who demonstrate anger are as guilty as the sexually immoral who are as guilty as witches, who are as guilty as those who envy. Sin is sin. It's all black.

 

Hmmm, that IS interesting! A belief in paedobaptism is highly irregular.

I will await Joshua's return to the thread before I comment further.

 

Tuor,

The purpose of those lectures was to establish the broad boundaries of Christian doctrine on key issues. My goal was to clearly explain the logic behind infant baptism, and to clarify the similarities between infant baptism and believer's baptism.

You left off the first sentence of that paragraph (the one that clarifies the historical context and explains that infant baptism wasn't practiced by the early church). It read:

You may have noticed the following as well:

and also

My hope was to provide a little understanding of other traditions to a room full of baptists.

Joshua

 

Nils -

One can come to a realization that homosexuality is a sin once they become regenerate. It is heavily debated and the opposing factors are evident.

Paedobaptism is a disobedience to Christ and is another form of legalism. It weakens doctrine and gives a false view of salvation.

I think you misunderstand me. As you are well aware, I think that homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle. I defend the rights of the membership to post their opposing beliefs and interpretations. That's why the other religions forum and all the other debate forums exist in the first place. I am not a pope and I wish for these real life issues to be discussed here as they may well show up on the doorsteps of our churches someday.

However, a belief in paedobaptism is against what makes one a Baptist. A large percentage of Christianity does believe in it, but Baptist do not. It is one of the foundational principles of our sect and those that preceded us: Baptism is a non-salvific act of obedience done by a believer upon confession.

[written as Joshua made his preceding post]

 

Tuor,

The church arrived at a compromise that I've never been happy with but under which I am willing to work. If one comes to us seeking membership in the church as a baptist, one is expected to have received believer's baptism. (I love doing baptisms, so I'll gladly dunk anyone who hasn't.) If one comes as a UCC person, infant baptism is sufficient.

Likewise, we have separate ordination tracks for those seeking ordination as baptist ministers or as UCC ministers.

It strikes me as a bit schizophrenic and unnecessary - but I've come to terms with the fact that I can't have everything I want from a single church.

Joshua
(whose wife, although baptized as an infant, was re-baptized when she became a baptist)

 

Tuor - one church, made up of baptist and UCC Christians. Ideally, I would require believer's baptism for all members. I almost left the church over the issue, but finally decided that the compromise was one I could live with.

Our church recognizes infant baptism as being an authentic part of church tradition. One can be baptized as an infant and still be a Christian. Full obedience to the example of Christ and of the early Church requires believer's baptism.

I see no problem with the WCC statement as it's excerpted here. The issue of baptismal unity is a frequent topic in ecumenical conversations. Whether baptized as infants or "adults" we are nevertheless Christians and members of the body of Christ. The issue isn't adopting a singular mode of baptism, it's recognizing our Christian unity.

Interestingly, if I remember correctly, the Consultation on Church Union (now "Churches Uniting in Christ") leaned toward believer's baptism as the preferred form of baptism. I remember being surprised by this since such a small percentage of Christians actually practice believer's baptism.

Joshua