Dear Brother Bob,
According to the meaning established by the Baptist Board, which Bible Boy sets forth plainly in his post, I agree with your statement.
However, according to what I understand from Scripture and historical evidence, I disagree with your statement.
That is a fancy way of saying I disagree with you, but have no offense with your statement.
Though I may be wrong on this, the point you make above is the Baptist belief in local, visible church autonomy.
This is inmho, a valid Baptistic mark of identity.
This does not mean that all who will add the name Baptist to their body of faith, therefore identifying themselves (locally, visibly, etc.) as a Baptist body of believers are or can be accepted as Baptist.
That explains the continual separation among Baptists. Where we are able to find fellowship in common faith or practice we all do rejoice; where differences yet remain we remain unattached, except in a local, visible body of believers.
Many have taken this too literally and have gone about to establish their own righteousness (in the historic Baptist camps) I mean, but have begun to ignore the righteousness of God.
If I have left you in confusion, I will try to clear it up with a simple statement:
The local church has for its head, Christ Alone.
The local church has for its sole rule of faith and order, the Word of God Alone.
Neither of the above deny the use of articulating creeds, covenants, or other statements of faith as long as they adhere to the above.
There are, inmho, many non-denominational bodies of believers that are certainly Baptistic in their faith, practice and order. However by their own choice they refuse to claim the name of Baptist because initially (in the time of their organization) it was considered by the body to be an offensive term to the world.
These same bodies will claim no 'doctrine' but that of the Scripture alone, or Christ taught alone...etc.
It becomes their own rejection of the Baptist name, a name that historically was given to them by the enemies of the truth (one universal, invisible, body headed by an earthly representative of Christ on Earth, whose words supercede that of Scripture) that begins to move them more and more toward agreement with that enemy of local visible autonomy.
I use to be able to say no Baptist I know will deny freedom of consience, or sometimes called soul liberty. I use to be able to say no Baptist I know will deny eternal hope to any who look to God through Christ's atonement and who consistently and with purpose attempt to follow the words of the Apostle
It is not the true motive of the heart the Baptist attempts to separate from, whose heart can I know?
It is the local, visible, timely faith, practice and order of some other groups that Baptists see reason to separate themselves.
For this same reason, Baptists continue to find reason to distiguish themselves from other Baptistic groups or churches.
None of this prevents the local, visible practice of any particular body according to the Grace that is given them to receive the body of revealed truth.
The error, even among Baptists, comes when we pretend to be able to judge the eternal position of others simply by their outward profession.
(Please note I am not in support of universalism; where there is no hunger none come to the table, where there is no thirst, none come to the fountain, I am speaking in accordance to Paul's words in 2 Tim. 2:19 as to what foundation is sure and eternal.)
May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas
According to the meaning established by the Baptist Board, which Bible Boy sets forth plainly in his post, I agree with your statement.
However, according to what I understand from Scripture and historical evidence, I disagree with your statement.
That is a fancy way of saying I disagree with you, but have no offense with your statement.
Though I may be wrong on this, the point you make above is the Baptist belief in local, visible church autonomy.
This is inmho, a valid Baptistic mark of identity.
This does not mean that all who will add the name Baptist to their body of faith, therefore identifying themselves (locally, visibly, etc.) as a Baptist body of believers are or can be accepted as Baptist.
That explains the continual separation among Baptists. Where we are able to find fellowship in common faith or practice we all do rejoice; where differences yet remain we remain unattached, except in a local, visible body of believers.
Many have taken this too literally and have gone about to establish their own righteousness (in the historic Baptist camps) I mean, but have begun to ignore the righteousness of God.
If I have left you in confusion, I will try to clear it up with a simple statement:
The local church has for its head, Christ Alone.
The local church has for its sole rule of faith and order, the Word of God Alone.
Neither of the above deny the use of articulating creeds, covenants, or other statements of faith as long as they adhere to the above.
There are, inmho, many non-denominational bodies of believers that are certainly Baptistic in their faith, practice and order. However by their own choice they refuse to claim the name of Baptist because initially (in the time of their organization) it was considered by the body to be an offensive term to the world.
These same bodies will claim no 'doctrine' but that of the Scripture alone, or Christ taught alone...etc.
It becomes their own rejection of the Baptist name, a name that historically was given to them by the enemies of the truth (one universal, invisible, body headed by an earthly representative of Christ on Earth, whose words supercede that of Scripture) that begins to move them more and more toward agreement with that enemy of local visible autonomy.
I use to be able to say no Baptist I know will deny freedom of consience, or sometimes called soul liberty. I use to be able to say no Baptist I know will deny eternal hope to any who look to God through Christ's atonement and who consistently and with purpose attempt to follow the words of the Apostle
In fact, I believe all that I have stated above is historically true of Baptists.
It is not the true motive of the heart the Baptist attempts to separate from, whose heart can I know?
It is the local, visible, timely faith, practice and order of some other groups that Baptists see reason to separate themselves.
For this same reason, Baptists continue to find reason to distiguish themselves from other Baptistic groups or churches.
None of this prevents the local, visible practice of any particular body according to the Grace that is given them to receive the body of revealed truth.
The error, even among Baptists, comes when we pretend to be able to judge the eternal position of others simply by their outward profession.
(Please note I am not in support of universalism; where there is no hunger none come to the table, where there is no thirst, none come to the fountain, I am speaking in accordance to Paul's words in 2 Tim. 2:19 as to what foundation is sure and eternal.)
May God Bless,
Bro. Dallas
