What Does it take to be a "Baptist"?

The crux of your statement, DHK, is that you are talking about faith. We can not, no matter how we try, make someone believe a certain way. This goes back to the concept of Soul Liberty, a Baptist distinctive that you claim to hold. The fact of the matter is, the name of our denomination goes back 4 centuries. The term "Fundamentalist" derives from a 1909 publication "The Fundamentals: A testimony to the truth" which promoted 5 beliefs (adopted from the 1895 Niagra Bible conference) for those opposed to the Modernist movement.

Fundamentalists and Fundamentalism

This movement was fueled by events through the 20th century such as the Scope's trial, modern cosmology, the emergence of the teaching of evolution, etc.

If we were having this conversation in the 1960's, the term you apply to yourself would indicate that you are a Catholic opposed to Vatican II!

Now before I go any further on this, let me say that my own personal theology adheres to those 5 points of fundamentalism but I do not label myself a "fundamentalist" because of the other modern connotations associated with the word.

As you may be able to tell, this entire conversation is something in which I find great interest. For the sake of argument (perhaps a VERY poor choice of words, time will tell), I will tell you some of the modernist's arguments against your own 2 personal interpretation of Baptist/Biblical/Christian faith, and the reader himself must decide whether the issues are that critical and only the Son can decide if they are necessary for salvation.

There are those who support this view because the Apostle Paul never once mentions this fact despite his MAJOR focus on the physical ressurection. The issue then turns to the origins of the Gospels and the time of their writing relative to Paul's ministry.

The question that must be raised from this view is: Is a belief in the Virgin Birth necessary for salvation? I don't believe we are qualified to say so.

I believe you are referring to Divine Inspiration when you say this. This is a very subjective analysis. To me it is a focus on the non-essentials. For example, the Book of Jonah often falls under hard scrutiny from Innerrantist vs. Modernist. Though we know Jonah was a true historical figure, the story of his mission to Ninevah is viewed by some as an Old Testament parable.

My opinion: In either case, the story is canonized in the Scriptures for the same reason: it is the great Old Testament missions story.

To attain salvation, must one believe that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish?

Another example is the 6 day creation story. The argument is raised time and again what is a day to God? Yet we see people beat each other over the head ceaselessly over this issue.

My opinion: Does it REALLY matter? Shouldn't the focus be on this day, this time, this place? Is a belief in a literal six 24 hour period creation necessary for salvation?

So you see, the issue is raised of at what point must one believe in the accuracy of the Scriptures to be called a Christian. Copernicus was killed for his belief in the heliocentric model of our solar system. He did not believe that Joshua made the "sun stand still." There are extremist in our sects that would still kill this man for his belief. Was it really necessary to believe in the geocentric theory in Copernicus' time to attain salvation? Is it still?

Christian faith is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is comprised of personal beliefs for which we will all be held accountable at the time of Judgment.

Hmmm, after previewing my submission I expect this post will get the rocks and mud flying. Again, I will emphasize that my own beliefs are congruent with your's, DHK. I merely wish to add a little perspective to the conversation.

 

I am saying that when we rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15) it should be done with patience and instruction (2Timothy 4:2) so that our ministry will not be discredited (2Corinthian 6:3).

We are to show respect for everyone (1Peter 2:17) and not look down on those who disagree with us (Romans 14:10).

2Timothy 2:23 is also quite applicable.

[ October 04, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

Unitarianism is outside historic Baptist belief. This is not to say there have never been any Baptists who were Unitarian, but to say that if they were they were not considered orthodox. I am familiar with some cases of tending to Unitarianism or other unorthodox ideas on the Trinity. But, in the cases with which I am familiar, these persons or churches did not remain Baptist. All the Baptist confessions with which I am familiar espouse Trinitarian theology. Some people perhaps are confused when we use the term Baptist Distinctives. That term is not intended to encompass all things that Baptist believe, but to show where Baptist beliefs are distinct from other "orthodox" Christians.

 

I believe you are referring to Divine Inspiration when you say this. This is a very subjective analysis. To me it is a focus on the non-essentials. For example, the Book of Jonah often falls under hard scrutiny from Innerrantist vs. Modernist. Though we know Jonah was a true historical figure, the story of his mission to Ninevah is viewed by some as an Old Testament parable.

My opinion: In either case, the story is canonized in the Scriptures for the same reason: it is the great Old Testament missions story.</font>[/QUOTE]"Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)

The doctrine of inspiration is not subjective at all. People's interpretation of the Bible may be subjective. But inspiration is simply the fact that God has given us an accurate God-breathed revelation. It was transmitted from the hand of God by the hand of some men for all men. It is my personal opinion that we have the inspired Word of God preserved for us in the Received text of the New Testament and the Masoretic text of the Old Testament. Beyond that you can argue/discuss what the text means. But we have an accurate reading of the text.
The liberal will not believe verbal and plenary inspiration: that it is applicable to both every word and every part of the Bible as a whole. It is for those reasons I don't really consider a liberal "baptist" as baptist.
DHK

 

How do we know which interpretation is correct since interpretation may be subjective?

Rev. G

 

Again, DHK, I agree with your theology and belief in the Scriptures, but this requires faith on our parts. Faith is believing in the unprovable. Faith stems from the direction of the Holy Spirit.

How can we say that God has not convicted a man to faith because he does not view the Bible the same way that we do? Where would this be in the Scriptures, our sole authority? 1Corinthians 15:1-2 only refers to the "Gospel" that Paul taught being necessary for salvation. That "Gospel" as I interpret the meaning, is the teachings of and belief in the resurrected Christ.

All we have to prove that the Bible is inerrant is the Bible itself. A believer can still hold to the "authority" of the Scriptures without holding to inerrancy. We do not worship the "word" of God (Ephesians 6:17). We worship the "Word of God" (John 1:1). The Resurrected Christ is the center of our faith (1Corinthians 15:17). The Bible is the instruction manual. A position of errancy does not necessarily negate the position of the singleness and the sufficiency of the Bible as the guide to salvation and the governing of a church, the Baptist distinctive. If we say that this view or that belief does not make one a Christian, we have put ourselves in the Judgment seat that Christ has reserved for Himself (John 5:21-23).

Again, that particular instance is a directive towards a congregation to come to a mutual decision to excommunicate a sexually immoral member.

Rebuke should be done with instruction and patience. When we speak the truth in love we must bear in mind what love is and what love isn't.

This is the element of rebuke that is too often missing, IMO.

One further note: I apologize for the delays in my responses. I have had a rather busy day and though I check the forum regularly, I do not always have the time to look up my references.

 

All we have to prove that the Bible is inerrant is the Bible itself. A believer can still hold to the "authority" of the Scriptures without holding to inerrancy. We do not worship the "word" of God (Ephesians 6:17). We worship the "Word of God" (John 1:1). The Resurrected Christ is the center of our faith (1Corinthians 15:17). The Bible is the instruction manual. A position of errancy does not necessarily negate the position of the singleness and the sufficiency of the Bible as the guide to salvation and the governing of a church, the Baptist distinctive. If we say that this view or that belief does not make one a Christian, we have put ourselves in the Judgment seat that Christ has reserved for Himself (John 5:21-23).
</font>[/QUOTE]I am not talking about the gospel or about being saved, or being a Christian. Inspiration of the Scriptures is one of the fundamentals of the faith. Innate in the statement that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is the fact that we have an inspired Word of God. I am not talking of translations here. How can one hold to the Bible as his final authority if he doesn't believe it??
There are many who are Christians and have a different view of inspiration than you or I. I do not deny that. I am not judging any one's salvation. Inspiration may be a matter of faith, but it is an article of faith at least distinct to the Baptists, if not to some others as well.
DHK

 

Nils, the personal pronoun "you" is to the church of God in Corinth as is evidenced in verse 1:2 of this Letter. By your reasoning, it would require an assembly of every single Christian in the world to implement church discipline (verse 5:4 - "When you are assembled...)

I take it you are still having difficulty with the concept of church autonomy?

 

Now I think we are making progress. You are asserting what Baptist SHOULD be in your opinion. Nonetheless, there are Baptists who do not hold to this view. The distinctives state what we ARE, not what we should be. Again, I would need to see Scripture that says that a believer must hold to a view of inerrancy for this to be a true distinctive since all of the distinctives are Biblically based (whether others accept our explanations or not). If it is not a Biblically based tenant of faith, then we are not getting the concept from Scripture, thus we are holding to an authority outside of Scripture. See the Catch-22 here?

Just to make sure that we are using the same terms though, in your definition inerrancy is synonymous to inspiration, correct?

I will look for your response in the morning. It's late here on the east coast.

 

I agree with you in your statement of inspiration. I only made the statement on inerrancy because there are some that stretch both inerrancy and inspiration to the translation. I believe that the Bible was inspired in the original autographs and it is preserved for us in the received text and in the masoretic text. It does not extent to the translation. That was the only point I was really trying to make about inerrancy.
DHK

 

Jim, as Robert said here:

What you call your own interpretation of Scripture OTHERS may call twisting. You are speaking from your own subjective point of view. You are taking a position that anyone who disagrees with you is not Baptist. Part of what crystallized our denomination out from other sects during the Protestant reformation was an escape from such theocratic views. To say "all must view Scripture as I" is the same thing that the Church of England established upon its break from Rome and continued through the time of the Acts of Toleration.

All believers are priest and therefore competent to go to God on their own. (1Peter 2:9). I'll give you some more Scripture and specific histories to chew on on this subject tomorrow.

On that subject, DHK and Tuor, check your PMs. I had written you to let you know that I would not have time today to continue the conversation. I just got home a little while ago and have yet to make it through my forums. I have miles to travel (figuratively ) yet before I sleep, but look forward to continuing our discourse tomorrow.

 

Clint,

So, there is no objective truth to be gained from the Bible, it's all a matter of someone's opinion? When the Bible clearly calls something sin and an abomination, It's MY OPINION???

George over there claims that HIS reading of Scripture leads to the "truth" that half of the bible is uninspired. Fred, over in the corner, says that HIS reading of scripture tells him that Christ didn't actually rise from the dead, it was just an inspiring story. Henry, over here, isn't so sure that the Ten Commandments were actually from God, Moses probably made the story up to scare people into his following his intolerant ways.

So, since we're Baptists, we have to consider that each of these guys has a "right" to "believe" that he went directly to God and got his ideas. And so long as they were Baptised (by immersion, of course...that one we're sure of)...we have to call them Baptists, if they so desire.

Nope, don't buy it.