The limits of Baptists?

Hi Sopranette. I have several close Baptist friends who are indeed filled with the spirit of Christ and walk the walk every day.

As far as limitations, from my doctrinal perspective, the absence of sacramental grace is a disadvantage on the path towards sanctification. And I find the doctrine of the "communion of saints" in which the members of the body of Christ already in heaven are engaged in assisting us in 'running the race' with their prayers to be true. I find the idea that once we are in heaven that we are totally separated from those here on earth to mean there isn't really 'one body'. I understand these beliefs don't align with Baptist doctrine and hope your thread doesn't become one of debate. But I would define the absence of the understanding of the communion of saints in this way as being a limitation.

The other difference I find I'm not sure I would call a limitation, but certainly a different way of thought, and that is of the importance of communal prayer within my faith. For example, I prayed the morning prayers today of the "Liturgy of the Hours". These are primarily based on the psalms and other scripture prayers (like Simeon's profession upon seeing the baby Jesus in the temple). I find it quite inspiring to know that I am praying with literally hundreds of thousands around the world to sanctify time. And I believe that God is pleased when we raise our voices together in praise of Him.

 

I was a Baptist for 30 years until I could no longer swallow the premil pretrib rapture stuff. Also wanted to swallow alcohol for attitude adjustment. Dispensational theology doesn't compute. Covenant theology does.

 

There are many points of difference between what is written in the Scriptures and what is taught in the Baptist church. Please understand I'm not "Baptist bashing". I have several friends amongst the Baptists, and they live morally upright lives and they are fine people. The problems are doctrinal in nature, not personal.

Just as a for instance, the plan of salvation offered in Baptist churches is not like what one reads in the Bible. One is not likely to hear an invitation like that given by the apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 from a Baptist pulpit. It was good enough for an inspired apostle, but not for a Baptist assembly. Why not? (This is liable to get the thread sidetracked, though it is not my intent.)

There are several other points of difference, and they can be discussed later, but this was the breaking point for me when I left the Baptist church.

 

It seems to me that in most Protestant faiths the emphasis is more on a personal relationship with Jesus (me and Jesus 1:1), and the relationship with the community is secondary. In the Catholic/Orthodox traditions while there is indeed a personal relationship with Jesus, it is seen as being expressed more within the body of Christ. At least that is my perception; others may disagree.

 

On the profile of Sgt. Fury I see that they are a member of "Needmore church of christ" (Campbellight). The campbellights believe that baptism is ESSENTIAL for salvation and this is the reason why Sgt. Fury says : " One is not likely to hear an invitation like that given by the apostle Peter in Acts 2:38 from a Baptist pulpit." In addition to Acts 2:38 they will also quote Mark 16:16 and other verses to support baptismal regeneration (the belief that baptism is essential for salvation)...

 

Being a Baptist my entire life gives me at least some right to say this: I am turned off sometimes by my own faith tradition...not because of theology but because of our disunity. I remember in my Baptist history class in college the professor started with this:

"The first baptist church started in England in 1611 or 1612...and a little while later it split. Take that model and repeat and you have Baptist history."

To me, that's sad.

 

Sopranette,

I am impressed. The biggest thing that limits Baptists from my persepectve is that they are not willing to ask the question that you just asked.
God bless!!! :thumbs:

I don't have a lot of time right now but I will start with baptism. Saying a person needs to be immersed in water to be a member of the local church is unscriptural.

It is not required to get into heaven but it is to be a sunday school teacher in a little podunk baptist church. :tear:

They have missed out on some men and women of GOd being a blessing in their lives because of it. In addition there is a price to pay for such teachings.

 

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

 

In my experience its very common in baptist, and other similar organisations. Sometimes one articulates a prayer, while others "agree" with it.

Sometimes we have a prayer time where everyone in the building is praying quietly individually, but all at the same time. etc etc.

These are done as a gathered assembly, so it is "communal".


That is the only sense in which "communal" prayer would be legitimate. Those who are spiritually alive in heaven are referred to as "the dead" because they have experienced their physical death, and we are forbidden to attempt to contact them...to contact "the dead".

To have everyone praying world wide the same pre-ordained prayer usually results in "dead ritual" praying, rather than the spontaneous yearnings and spiritual "groanings" of the heart that our Father loves.

The main heartache for me, as a "Bapticostal", is regarding the predominant Baptist prayer attitude of rejecting the spirtual gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues, as well as a personal prayer language in another tongue, which is also completly biblical.

Course, THAT might also get the thread sidetracted, but I cant help that. I was asked a question, so I gave my answer. :smilewinkgrin:


God bless,

Mike

 

I find it somewhat humourous that someone would say that an organisation would be against a biblical passage that includes baptism...and the organisation in questions is referred to as....the "BAPTISTS"!!

Mike :laugh:

 

I don't see this as a limiting factor. Isn't baptism a requirement for church membership in most denominations??

While we have a different view of baptism compared to Baptists, we still require baptism before someone is a member of our church.

 

For the record I am not a Cambellite. I have just as many calories as a regular Campbell :laugh: There is nothing that I believe or teach that originated with Alexander Campbell. He is not the founder of the Chruch of Christ. If he were, it would not be the Church of Christ, since it was established in Acts 2.

Alexander Campbell was only one of several who determined to lay aside their denominational creeds and confessions and simply rely on the New Testament for their authority in faith and practice.

Cowboymatt made a good point in his last post when he quoted his college professor, "The first baptist church started in England in 1611 or 1612..." That's almost 1600 years too late for the Baptist church to be the church we read about in the New Testament.

The issue of baptism is not to be determined by what any group teaches on the subject, but by what the Bible says about it. We can only be correct on the subject if we agree with the Bible. Believe it or not, the Bible has quite alot to say about it.

 

Coming from someone who is "nondenominational" one can expect such a statement, but it isn't one based on the Bible.
In fact we take our example from the Bible:

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

1. saved. 2. baptized. 3. membership in church.
This all happened in the church at Jerusalem. It was the normal Biblical pattern, and the pattern that was practiced throughout the NT.

Not only was it the practice throughout the NT, it was the practice of almost every denomination throughout history and still is today.
The RCC, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc. all admit people into their churches by the door of baptism. They may be wrong in their doctrine of soteriology, as I believe the COC is and the J.W's are, but even both of them require baptism as a door to membership. Something so obviously important in the Bible, so evident, so clearly taught that even the cults and the unsaved can see that it is important enough to practice it before one can become a member of their churches.

To say that baptism is not necessary for membership in a church is a statement that goes against a huge tide of evidence: Biblical, historical, and ecclesiastical.