Baptist.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do You Know the Baptist Distinctives?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
Think Most of us here are that Brother
I hope so. Now I am not any of those I listed.
I would add, only two offices (pastor and deacon), and the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Those two are extremely important.
Agreed that scriptures as the supreme and final authority for all doctrines and practices very important, and would see though Elders as being named in the bible as an official office in local assemblies
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I sort of came into "Baptist" through the side door. I heard the Gospel from Catholic Charismatics, attended a Church of God and Evangelical Free Church and read a LOT of scripture trying to reconcile my personal salvation experience (from nihilistic Atheists criminal) with the Wesleyan Holiness dominated teaching that I was exposed to. A comprehensive online exam said my personal beliefs were a 100% match to something called "Reformed Baptist" [now if I only knew what "reformed" meant and what "baptists" believed). So I located the nearest "Southern Baptist" church to check it out and read the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message (not a bad booklet).
So for me, the "hills to die on" were:
1. baptize believers, not babies.
2. SCRIPTURE is the only trustworthy authority.
3. CHURCH is the LOCAL body of believers ... hierarchy gets in the way and messes things up.
I read a bunch of other "distinctives". Most seemed to make sense, and a few hardly seemed worth fighting over.
A. State and Church in bed together generally corrupts both, so separation is not a terrible idea.
B. People really should answer to God more than any man, but that opens the door to a LOT of cults (I have mixed feelings about that from a SCRIPTURE point of view).
So that would be my personal starting point without looking up the other issues.
Distinctive is an interesting term. Some Baptists believe in a list, but other Baptists believe in another list.
For example Soul Liberty. The idea is that the lost are able to seek God and trust in Christ, as far as General Baptists are concerned,. However, a careful reading the distinctive in post #2 says the lost are free to choose, but sidesteps whether they are able to choose. Thus a Reformed Baptist can use a very similar list to a General Baptist, yet their doctrines are at odds.
For example Soul Liberty. The idea is that the lost are able to seek God and trust in Christ, as far as General Baptists are concerned,. However, a careful reading the distinctive in post #2 says the lost are free to choose, but sidesteps whether they are able to choose. Thus a Reformed Baptist can use a very similar list to a General Baptist, yet their doctrines are at odds.
People often connect "soul liberty" to the Calvinist-Arminian discussion, but I believe that emphasis is mistaken. It is not a synonym of "free will." The term is used in the Baptist distinctives with the meaning that a believer is free to make his or her own choices in regards to religion (Bible interpretation, translation choices, positions on separation, etc.) without pressure or control from church leadership or denominational rules. As such, some lists of the Baptist distinctives subsume it under the priesthood of the believer rather than as a separate distinctive.
This does not mean that local churches are not free to decide their own doctrine and standards, and carry out their own church discipline. It also does not mean that believers are free to disagree with plain fundamental doctrine as taught in Scripture--for example a full preterist denying a future Second Coming of Christ, or saying that it already happened as a "spiritual" coming.
Edited in: Speaking of Baptist theologian James Leo Garret, Paul Basden wrote, "Following a careful study of the priesthood in both testaments, he concluded that the biblical meaning of the doctrine 'is the offering of "spiritual sacrifices" such as in worship, witness, stewardship, and service (ministry)" (Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery, p. 303).
This does not mean that local churches are not free to decide their own doctrine and standards, and carry out their own church discipline. It also does not mean that believers are free to disagree with plain fundamental doctrine as taught in Scripture--for example a full preterist denying a future Second Coming of Christ, or saying that it already happened as a "spiritual" coming.
Edited in: Speaking of Baptist theologian James Leo Garret, Paul Basden wrote, "Following a careful study of the priesthood in both testaments, he concluded that the biblical meaning of the doctrine 'is the offering of "spiritual sacrifices" such as in worship, witness, stewardship, and service (ministry)" (Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery, p. 303).
Last edited:
atpollard
Well-Known Member
It reminds me of a quote from "A Man For All Seasons" (1966) ...
- The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I'm not a scholar, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!
- Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?
The concept of individual soul liberty says a person may believe all 5 points of the TULIP, or reject them. The TULIP says the lost are unable to seek God at any time, nor put their trust and devotion in Christ as Savior and Lord. Reformed Baptists have a version of the distinctive that does not allow rejection of the TULIP. Pretty simple really.
To say a lost soul is not at liberty to believe in Christ without supernatural intervention, is inconsistent with the actual concept.
To say a lost soul is not at liberty to believe in Christ without supernatural intervention, is inconsistent with the actual concept.
Great post!
I heard the joke, What would you be if not a Baptist? The answer came: I would be ashamed. I say, Me too.
But
I began attending the Baptist church while still in my mother's womb, and chose to be a Baptist after my conversion. I have tried to be a careful student of the word since I was 25 years old but I must say, I have never heard anyone at any time try to explain "Priesthood of the believer" and where I can find it taught in scripture. Never heard a sermon on it. It has not appeared on this Baptist forum as a topic that I know of. It has never come up for discussion in the fellowship hall. I have been to many Sword conferences, listened to thousands of recorded sermons, been to camp meetings and no sermons on it when I was in the audience.
My point is that I am not denying it as a doctrine of scripture, but just saying it is not a doctrine that gets much, if any attention. I am saying I am ignorant of the doctrine and would like to know more about it.
I'd say the key to this "priesthood of believers" is in the verse that follows (in 1 Peter 2):
"declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light."
I will check it out after church tonight. If it works out I might quiz my pastor about it.
I've read through the entire thread, and may have missed it, but thinking sola fide should be among Baptist Distinctives. You can't be Baptist if you believe salvation can be lost. Not really. Immersion and Sola Scriptura. Belief in the Trinity. Belief in the necessity that a person must turn to Christ for themselves; it cannot be mediated by another. It may be that I'm tired, but that's all I can think of off the top of my head. Many things listed belong more in Statements of Faith rather than Baptist Distinctives.
It's interesting that tithing came up, lol. Most Baptists do teach tithing. As a Baptist, I do not. I view it as part of the Old Covenant and nowhere prescribed to followers of Christ. While it is a practice that predates the Covenant of Law, we are told that we are to give cheerfully, something incompatible with a prescribed amount. So, the interesting part I see is this: Baptists generally distinguish themselves from typical religious doctrine (if not practice), yet, in this one element, I see a failure to properly divide.
Hope everyone has been doing well.
God bless.
It's interesting that tithing came up, lol. Most Baptists do teach tithing. As a Baptist, I do not. I view it as part of the Old Covenant and nowhere prescribed to followers of Christ. While it is a practice that predates the Covenant of Law, we are told that we are to give cheerfully, something incompatible with a prescribed amount. So, the interesting part I see is this: Baptists generally distinguish themselves from typical religious doctrine (if not practice), yet, in this one element, I see a failure to properly divide.
Hope everyone has been doing well.
God bless.
So you like to ask questions, but actually have nothing to support your bogus views?
Irresistible grace, one of your bogus views is shown to be bogus by Matthew 23:13, where people were entering the kingdom, thus according to your view were under the influence of irresistible grace, the supernatural enabling influence, yet were prevented from actually completing their entry by false doctrine.
The concept of individual soul liberty says a person may believe all 5 points of the TULIP, or reject them. The TULIP says the lost are unable to seek God at any time, nor put their trust and devotion in Christ as Savior and Lord. Reformed Baptists have a version of the distinctive that does not allow rejection of the TULIP. Pretty simple really.
To say a lost soul is not at liberty to believe in Christ without supernatural intervention, is inconsistent with the actual concept.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
I know this is random, but if we ventured to wonder about the probabilities that Calvin just tore into a bunch of blank paper, from scratch, and pumped out a truckload of astoundingly voluminous collection, which became his Institutes, or about how far a stretch we would have to make to assume that there may have been another wealth of knowledge somewhere he drew from, liberaly?
Baptists, by any other name, maybe?