What Does it take to be a "Baptist"?

Just a few points here as it is late but I wanted to clear a few, what I perceive to be, misconceptions.

1) When I use the term "Biblical Authority," I am saying that the Bible is the sole and sufficient means to salvation and the governing of a church. It does not refer to how we interpret Scripture but rather to the fact that we do not believe in extra-Scriptural devices such as canons and councils to guide us.

2) The "autonomy of the local congregation" is seen demonstrated in the Scriptures in Acts 6 and again in 2Corinthians 2:6 to name a couple reference points. Also, the majority of the Pauline Letters are addressed not to general audiences but to specific congregations.
This concept should not be confused with the undrstanding of the "universal body."

3) The "Priesthod of all Believers," even if it is not unique to Baptists, is Scripturally supported in 1Peter 2:9-10.

4) The Two Ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper are also certainly not unique to us, but for the most part are the ONLY recognized ordinances observed by Baptist churches. The other distinction that should be noted here is that they are viewed as non-salvific.
It should also be noted that certain sects of Baptist also view feet washing as an ordinance and observe this practice.

5) Individual Soul Liberty - We beat this one to death a year ago, Nils, but I will link you to a more recent post on the subject up in the Baptist section of the board: http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=001077

You will find my own comments toward the bottom of the first page as I felt that there was a misunderstanding in that thread as well.

6)"Saved, Baptized, Church membership- I believe you will find dissention on this one too(See Soul Competency). If you are trying to say that you can't be saved outside of being baptized into your body of believers, then Baptists are heretics indeed. Even Catholics don't go that far."
No, we are not saying that. What this means is that Baptism is necessary for church membership. Baptism is NOT necessary for salvation. Salvation is attained by Grace alone.

7) Two offices (Pastor, Deacon) - These are the only two offices held by the churches described in the New Testament, that is why it is all we have. The words bishop, elder, and pastor are interchangeable.

8) Seperation of church and state - Though it is difficult to pinpoint examples of this in the Scriptures, there are many stories that showed a need for it. The story of Daniel and Darius in Daniel 6 is a great example of this. The clear, protected establishment of this principle is possibly the greatest contribution that the Baptist have given civilization as a whole. If you are unfamiliar with the stories of the early Baptist concerning the establishment of this principle I will be happy to post a link or three.

For those of us who hold to historic Baptist principles there is a certain sting to these words. They are hard to refute. However, if just being a Christian was enough, the New Testament would have little need for anything outside of the Gospel of John.

Believe me, the name Baptist does have meaning here and in our individual churches. Unfortunately, many of our ranks are totally numb and unaware of these principles and their applications. It does not, however, negate them.

Hope this helps.

[ October 01, 2002, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

I disagree. True there are a lot of people in baptist churches who don't hold to historic baptist belief on a number of issues. But those on whose theological coattails they ride would hold that you should distinguish between "baptist" as in those who attend or align themselves with a baptist congregation, and "baptist" as it applies in the realm of theology.

I also agree with Clint's comments.

 

Regardless of how one interprets the Bible,or specific aspects thereof, it is still the sole authority. It is the dismissal of human made creeds that is important.

There are also indications that those Letters to specific congregations were also meant to be passed around. That still does not negate the fact that the churches were urged to make their own decisions amongst their own ranks as I pointed out in Acts and 2Corinthians. Paul, who certainly had the authority to dictate policy to the Corinthians, did not do so but instead conceded to the "majority."

Then I would hope that they joined the Baptist Board so we could straighten them out.

The reason for baptism is clearly demonstrated in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian. It is an act of obedience and a proffession of faith. It is not however, a magic incantation.

But my view is clearly defined by the Scriptural references I cited. Until one can show me the error in my thought, my view stands, if only to me. I alone am accountable for this view and my interpretation of the Scriptures. If I convince or persuade others then I have helped educate other believers into this "truth" that I hold. They, and you, are fee to disagree with that interpretation. Welcome to the use of Soul Competency.

Baptism, again, is an act of obedience and profession of faith. It is not a "hoop." It is an ordinance of the church. This particular assertion is not up to your usual quality, Nils. God will save who he will save. I have no control over that. On the other hand, I do have control (to a degree) over whom I allow into my church membership and give a voice to in matters of church polity.

I can neither confirm nor deny this, but if it is so, they have lost their way. I will worry about the preservation of docrine in my own church, I cannot control theirs.

The experience of the founders of this denomination can hardly be viewed as "knee-jerk." It was hard won with jailings and beatings. Bear in mind that whenever there is a theocracy, it follows that taxes are raised to support the governments religion. Christ told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's but unto God what is God's. I would also encourage you to explore the story of Darius and Daniel and see why this type of seperation is necessary.

As a side note, this site receives more than 90% of it's hits from overseas, primarily in countries that were once under the iron curtain. The lurkers here are learning the concept of seperation of church and state in some part from this site.

Yes, I agree. Every Scriptural reference IS important, even those that deal with the governing of a church. In Matthew 16 Peter's profession of faith in Christ defines Christianity, Christ's remarks that follow speak of BUILDING the church. We, as Baptist, use the writings of Paul, Peter, James, John, etc. to do this.

Brother Nils! I AM one of the ones in authority on this site!!!

 

No, you and I happen to be in agreement with this. I would strongly protest a person living a homosexual lifestyle joining my own church. I have put in my two cents on the issue before in debates on this board.

3 For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.
4 In the name of our Lord Jesus, when you are assembled, and I with you in spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus,
5 I have decided to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. (NASB)

Paul was casting a vote and urging others to follow suit. The passage in 1Corinthians 5 and 2Corinthians 2 are considered by many scholars to be dealing with the same subject.

Paul's persecution does not over ride the persecution of the early Baptists. Bear in mind also that Paul's Letters could have been intercepted and destroyed and Paul put to death if he HAD advocated such an idea. The Romans were very clever in holding down rebellion. Besides, the Romans were rather tolerant of free exercise of religion. There was no need to address this issue.

If you wish, I'm sure that you will get much response on the thread. This subject usually does. I fear that I do not have as much time for debate as I would like o the site anymore, but I will watch it.

Decisions on this board are generally reached by concensus with the webmaster having final say and/or veto power. I do have a bit of influence in these matters, however. I suspect anyone reading this that has been asked to leave that area of the board received a PM or e-mail from me. I'm kind of a "take the bull by the horns" kind of fellow.

But it's kind of refreshing to NOT be the one who is taking the blame for something. Those moments are rather rare for me.

[ October 01, 2002, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

rsr,

I agree that there has been a trend towards being more specific in terms of what is meant by the authority of Scripture. I am not convinced that it is a good thing or that it is a Baptist thing.

We are now moving beyond an affirmation of Scripture to an affirmation of a particular view of Scripture.

That is a bit creedal for my tastes.

 

Clint, I assume that when you say that it is the dismissal of creeds that is important, you mean important for the purpose of defining "Baptist".

The problem, as I see it, is that baptist distinctives are really only significant if applied within the framework of Biblical Christianity, at least in its imperfect form as practiced. Of what meaning are the distinctives, however, if someone says "I believe that the Bible teaches that Christ never existed and God is a myth, but my church has no creeds, therefore we are Baptists". I exaggerate (a little bit ) to make my point, but Jesus did have some things to say about splitting hairs over the fine points (OK) while missing the larger truths (NOT OK).

Maybe another question to ask is "under today's definitions, what good is it to call yourself a Baptist"?

[ October 02, 2002, 11:37 PM: Message edited by: Pennsylvania Jim ]

 

Hello Jim -

Yes, I am referring to the distinctive of Biblical authority as part of the element of being Baptist. If we were to prioritize the distinctives, Biblical authority is second only to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

The problem we are having in this conversation is that radical extreme examples are not a fair form of seeking definition. Look at it this way: Jim Jones (of Jonestown fame) said he was a Christian. He wrote so called "Christian" literature. He headed a church. Of course in the end he led one of the most famous mass suicides in history. Now, what good is it to call ourselves Christains if we are associated with him?

Well, I AM a Christian. The acts of Jim Jones do not affect my belief and understanding of the philosophy that I hold to be my own. I (we) can not stop other sects from calling themselves Christian even if their beliefs are on some other radical fringe, however, we still cherish the name despite the abuse inflicted upon it.

Let me rephrase my position on this.

Some look to the church (Church) or some other ecclesiatical authority as the channel for Divine direction. Our Catholic friends here and to a degree, the Episcopalians fall into this category. Some sects look to scientific or deductive reasoning for Divine Truth. The Christian Scientist movement exemplifies this. Others rely on personal experience, or direct encounter to formulate their guide toward God's Will. The charismatic Petacostals fit this bill. These forms of seeking guidance hold value for these different groups, but as BAPTISTS, we hold to the teachings of the Scriptures. I am not saying that this is unique to us, but nonetheless, it is what we do.

Even those members of this board claiming the name Baptist who stand in he minority or even alone in their interpretations are held to the standard of defending their views from the standpoint of Scriptural reference.

To answer your example of a group that would deny the existence, or indeed, the Deity of Jesus Christ, they would not be Baptist. The Baptist faith is a sect of Christianity. The Lordship of Jesus Christ is the #1 hallmark of being a Baptist. I would hope this goes without saying. It is also the #1 hallmark of ALL of the groups I mentioned in this post.

I hope this answers Tuor's question as well.

 

Any ideas on why this change came about? Was it a defensive response mechanism to higher criticism?</font>[/QUOTE]Maybe, but I'd be hesitant to chalk itup to any one thing. Postmillenialism was also very high in the late 19th century (the time of thenew hampshire confession) which could indicate that confidence in the Bible was high as well. So the statements could reflect that too.

 

Clint, I see what you are saying and pretty much agree, except in the application. For example, you cite as reference some on this board who feel bound make their minority position arguments "from scripture", and are so-called Baptists. What I have tried to point out (and it's difficult for me to state it clearly enough) several places is that:

if one makes an argument based clearly on human sinful reasoning, and clearly in complete rebellion to CLEAR scriptural teaching, and then claims somehow to have some backward two-bit phony method of "interpreting" scripture, the smaller problem is their position on that issue, and the larger problem is their refusal to submit to God and His Word. The former will bring shame on the name of Christ and cause damage to the church, society, etc. etc., but the latter is a clear indication of a one wat ticket to the lake of fire.

As such, calling themselves "Baptists" is just like Jim Jones calling himself "Christian".

Suppose:

A local Kingdom Hall of the Jehovah's Witnesses splits from the JW organization over the issue of liberty and the priesthood of the believer. What would be their position? Seems to me that, based on "Baptist distinctives" alone, they would qualify as Baptists. They do in fact hold the Scriptures in much higher regard than at least several "Baptists" on this Board. So, can they legitimately now call their newly separated congregation "Baptist", with the Baptist distinctives along with all the other JW teachings that they get by misinterpreting scriptures that they sincerely claim as their authority?

 

I ain't even a baptist and I can tell you this isn't a plausiable scenario, because the JW's don't hold to the Trinity. And Trinitarian belief is a core belief in the baptist tradition.

 

To the best of my knowledge, this is an accurate statement. I believe we are safe in saying that Trinatarian doctrine runs common through the Baptist faith. At least I have never heard of a Unitarian Baptist sect.

 

This may sound offensive to some, provocative to others, but it is what I hold to be the truth. I have been an IFBer most of my saved life. I believe that to be Baptist is to be Biblical, and thus to adhere to the fundamentals of the faith. Unfortunately there are many that wear the Baptist name unworthily, not fit to be called a Baptist. Anyone that would deny a fundamental doctrine like the virgin birth or the inspiration of the Scriptures is not worthy to be called a Baptist. A Baptist is not only one who adheres to Baptistic distinctives, but also to the fundamentals of the faith, such as the trinity as some of you have already mentioned. I use the word "fundamental" in its historic sense here. A true Baptist is a fundamentalist in that he believes in the fundamentals of the faith (not the quirks and quarks of the faith). Can a liberal be a Baptist? You can decide for yourself, but they are not Baptists in my books.

Here are the Baptist Distinctives the way that I learned them,
1. The Bible is our only authority in all matters of faith and practice.
2. A regenerate baptized church membership.
3. Autonomy of the local church.
4. Priesthood of the believer.
5. Soul liberty.
6. Immersion (as baptism) and the Lord's Supper are the only two ordinances of the local church.
7. Separation of church and state.
8. Separation ecclesiastically and ethically.
DHK