Are 'Baptist' and 'Biblical' synonyms?

Older folks must listen to and respect the younger folks. On the other hand, the younger folks need to listen to and respect the elders as well and realize that they have been through many things in life and have some wisdom to impart. In other words, everyone needs to spend more time in prayer, Bible Study and evaluating if indeed the old and new traditions of Missions are Biblical and, if they are, go with it. On the other hand, we must be careful in our youth not to dive headlong into an empty swimming pool by embracing those things which might appeal to our generation or make us feel good, but lead to destruction.

Joseph Botwinick

 

One of the problems with calling any group "biblical" is the temptation to apply the converse idea that others who disagree with them for biblical reasons are not.

 

Go Ed. My church evangelism professor.

 

Although I am an IFB rather than a member of an SBC church, I agree with the points in Ed's article.

To put it briefly: "If it's 'Baptist,' it ought to be 'Biblical.' If it's 'Biblical,' it ought to be 'Baptist'!"

Why any congregation that calls itself Baptist would want to implement a practice that is blantantly unbiblical is beyond me.

I believe the majority of problems Baptist congregations have do not stem from a practice that is blatantly unbiblical. IMHO most problems come from the fact that, as Jesus so appropriately put it in Matthew 15:9, "But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

In other words, just because past generations of Baptists may have held to a certain practice does not, by itself, mean that that practice is necessarily biblical. Nor does it necessarily mean that practice is unbiblical. Nor does the fact that one Baptist congregation does something(s) different than yours mean you are biblical and they are unbiblical. (It could be that NEITHER congregation's practice is biblical!)

Change, by itself, is neither good nor bad. It depends on not only what it is being changed FROM, but also what it is being changed TO.

Methodology may change through the years. Sunday School was unheard of prior to around 1800, and even then, what were known as Sunday schools were not what we think of them as being today--they were schools held on Sundays for those children who worked in the factories (esp. in England) Monday through Saturday for the purpose of teaching them how to read and write.

I read nowhere in the sermons of, for example, C. H. Spurgeon, where he makes any mention of his being involved in a radio or TV ministry. Why not? Were they unbiblical? No...neither medium was invented during his period of ministry.

Those who authored the London or New Hampshire or Philadelphia Confessions of Faith never had anything to say about a church using a PA system or a bus ministry. Unbiblical? Of course not--they weren't available to them in their day.

We neither need to be so yoked to practices of the past that we cannot change some methods in order to reach people today.

Most churches never had a web site twenty years ago. Now some do. Is the fact that 20 years ago they didn't use that method of outreach therefore make a church's use of a web site unbiblical?

On the other hand, we should not be so naive to assume that "new" or "different" always equates to "better." Remember the hoopla about "New Coke" some 15-20 years ago? It was "new," but obviously the public did not find it "better." [BTW, I wonder how much a can full of "New Coke" would sell for on eBay today?!!? ]

'Nuf said!

 

Culturally Relevant? Love not the world .... pretty well sums up the problem that this admonition envelopes. The problem comes in when "culturally relevant" trumps biblical separation from the things of this world.

 

""New Coke" some 15-20 years ago? It was "new," but obviously the public did not find it "better.""

Well now, I'd say your memory may be a tad shallow there sonny! I was worken on a commodore 64 and I plum ruined my 40 character wide dot matrix printer printin my letter of complainet to them young whipper snappers that took away my coke! Wasn't bad nuff they offered us trash, but they took away the good stuff so's we'd have tu try the junk!!!

Wasn't that moren about 30 yer ago?

An as fer ebay, I'd guess Antiques Road Show would be a better place to go

Yuke, that stuff was bad.

 

That is why we started the IFB movement, to GET AWAY!! from the "mommy" known as the sbc.

Politics and church DON'T mix, but that doesn't mean politics shouldn't be preached, against!

Young people want to obey the Lord, most political organizations want you to obey them!!

 

The answer to the title is absolutely NO.

Baptists should be biblical but sadly it has gone from an accusation, to a description, to a label.

You can't even define "Baptist". Some "Baptists" teach easy believism (not biblical), some teach KJVOnlyism (not biblical), some have women leaders of men (not biblical), some are ecumenical beyond scriptural bounds (unbiblical), some have married homosexuals (unbiblical),....

The point is that there are many people who call themselves Baptists that are not biblical... and some who call themselves something else who are biblical.

 

A couple of months ago, our youth pastor addressed out church council about the yout working with the local Union Gospel Mission to get poor, underprivileged children to go to a week-long camp. Our church would have no cost to do this, but might "end up with more families to minister to".

Would you you believe there was an argument about whether or not we should do this? The reason? "We don't have enough people to miniuster to more families".

What an unbiblical statement from a Baptist church council! If God is moving us to do somethong, He will provide the resources to do it. We ARE doing this outreach this year. Now only God knows what the results will be. Whatever the outcome, we are obeying God in reaching out.

"Baptist" = "biblical"? Not always. Because we are still sinful humans who need to DAILY turn to the One True God Who came to earth and died for us, Jesus Christ.

Bill