What constitutes a "Baptist"

When asked I say I am a born again Christian, because I hope to show them that they must be born again too. But, I know what you are saying. I lean towards Anabaptism too. It seems the Bible practiced more in these groups.

 

"Brapsis"? What's a brapsis? Here's another I've seen:

B - Bible is sole authority
A - Autonomy
P - Priesthood of believer
T - Two ordinances: baptism and Lord's supper
I - Individual soul liberty
S - Saved and baptized membership
T - Two offices: pastor and deacon
S - Separation of church and state

[ July 08, 2003, 12:50 AM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

Just to expand on what BrianT posted, I've seen the same thing posted on this very BB, but with scripture references included...

--------------------------------

Eight Baptist Distinctives (an acrostic of the word "BAPTIST")

1).Biblical Authority - 2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20, 21

2).Autonomy of the Local Church Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, 19, 23

3).Priesthood of the Believer 1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 5:9, 10

4).Two Ordinances Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-32

5).Individual Soul Liberty Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9

6).Saved, Baptized Church Membership Acts 2:41-47; 1 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 4:3

7).Two Offices 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Acts 20:17-38; Philippians 1:1

8).Separation of Church and State Matthew 22:15-22; Acts 15:17-29

----------------------------

God Bless!!!

Adam

 

Trumpet,

I my study of church history, "ana-baptists" were those who re-baptized believers who were baptized as infants in the RCC, like the ana-baptists during the 16th century Reformation.

How do you define Ana-Baptist?

Blessings,
Jeffrey

 

Hi trumpet,

I agree with the definitions given so far. While Baptists are a continuation of the Radical or Anabaptist Reformation, we are not in the strictest sense Ana-baptists. We are part of the anabaptist tradition and have roots in it but we also have a connection to the Anglican tradition . Anabaptists were strongly and still are pacifists, against Christians serving in elected office, many accept the Apocrypha as scripture, as well as a few other differances such as Communalism. They help lay the foundation for Baptists and I believe in a spiritual kinship with them in that I see them as our forerunners and Baptists as part of their tradition. Anabaptists generaly are associated with Mennonites, Amish, Church of the Brethern, Hutterites.

Here are 2 Anabaptist websites,
Anabaptist-Mennonites

Anabaptist Church

 

It must be the bow tie.

 

Seems "Baptist" has become just a general label which can include all kinds from the gay liberal cooperative(ouch) to the extreme right wing southerners(ouch).
Well..maybe not all Southern Baptist are that way.
My point is just to say Baptist isn't what it use to mean.
Kinda like all these political preachers praying at these political events to "God" without nailing down which God to whom they are praying to in hopes not to offend any groups.
But that is for another thread.
Not sure what the common thread is among all the Baptist groups out there. Could just be immersion.
Mike

 

I have some questions about some (not all) the verses posted. Anyone can answer. Nothing intense, and not looking for debate:

That verse is about scripture authority? It specifically mentions what they "heard" from them, not what they "read".

That verse doesn't speak about autonomy, does it? It just says Christ is the head of the church (which is singular in this verse, btw).

I see these verses mentioning specific churches, but can someone explain how automony is specifially seen in these verses?

What, precisely, do you believe the difference to be between "ordinance" and "sacrament"?

What does this verse have to do with individual soul liberty? It looks like it is just about having correct doctrine.

Also, how far does this "liberty" extend?

What, precisely, do you believe the difference to be between "bishop" and "pastor"?

How is a passage about paying taxes mean church should be separate from state? And I don't see what the second passage has to do with separation of church and state, because the passage doesn't have anything to do with state. Now I realize a combination of, even cooperation of, church and state can easly be abused and corrupted. I also realize that a secular state does not mix well with the church. But the Jews, since Moses, combined church at state (when they could, ie. except when under captivity or oppression). As well, the eternal kingdom as a theocracy is the ultimate combination of church and state. Why are Baptists so opposed to this? Is it mostly just reaction to corruption of church/state in the dark/middle ages?

Thats all for now. Maybe more later.

 

"Brapsis"? What's a brapsis? Here's another I've seen:

B - Bible is sole authority
A - Autonomy
P - Priesthood of believer
T - Two ordinances: baptism and Lord's supper
I - Individual soul liberty
S - Saved and baptized membership
T - Two offices: pastor and deacon
S - Separation of church and state </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, I've seen that one, too (the main GARBC website has it I think), and it seems to be a pretty good summary of Baptist distinctives that are widely accepted. It also has the advantage that if you happen to be in one of our factions that make foot-washing an ordinance or recognize a third office, T can equally well serve for "Three" as for "Two"!

Haruo

 

Baptists are totally opposes to the idea of the state interferring with the church because we are fiercely independent (hence autonomy, also) but, we are highly in favor of the church interferring with the state, both as individuals and in groups. The modern concept of one not having anything to do with the other is completely foreign to us and is viewed as an attempt by the enemy to stamp out Christian influence.

What??? Separation of church and state is equal to both. The state does not have the authority to tell the church what it can do, and the church does not have the authority to tell the state what it can do. If this were not so, the distinctive would be "separation of state from church". It is not. Your definition is a perversion of the distinctive.

 

The state has no business interferring with what the church does or how it does it (The true church acting according to scripture) (See the 1st Ammendment to the constitution). Individual Christians have every right and responsibility to interfer with what the state does and how it does it (See the 1st Ammendment to the constitution). Do you agree with this, or am I to forego my citizenship? It is not a "wall" of seperation. It is a protection of the church from the state, not the other way around. The state would corrupt the church, the church would improve the state. The concept of seperation of church and state was perverted by those who wish to stop the influence of the church on the state, I am merely "perverting" is back to where it was to begin with.

 

Maybe it's just me, but I don't think what Paul preached to them, i.e. what they "heard", was simply Paul reading scriptures to them. I'm fairly confident that although he covered doctrines he also covers in scripture, he probably used different words when he spoke in person. It is also very likey that he talked about things he didn't mention in scripture.

I'm not doubting the authority of scripture at all. I just didn't understand how that particular verse dealt with that subject, let alone taught authority of scripture only.

Do you then think the Baptist position of autonomy is largely an argument from silence?

It has to do with there not being a universal rulebook for right and wrong, but that *some* things are right/wrong for an individual depending on the choices and faith of that individual (see the ends of Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8). Actually, how far "individual soul liberty" extends causes great debates on this very board, on topics such as drinking wine, wearing certain kinds of clothes, etc. This is a Baptist tenet, but for some reason many Baptists are only willing to apply it to themselves, and not to other Baptists.

Do you think the Baptist position on separation of church/state is due to current and past conditions, or is it from scripture?

 

Individuals, yes. The Church as an institution, no.

Then you disagree with Thomas Jefferson. The framers of the Constitution were adamant that the new United States would not recognize an official religion, as was done with the Church of England in the UK. The wall of separation that was spoken about was a scecific intent by the framers from preventing any Church from interfering with the Government.

Not according to Jefferson and the framers.

The framers wanted to prevent the influence of the church on the state, and vice versa.

Not at all. You appear to be participating in revisionist history that many well meaning Christians, as well as anti-Christians are guilty of.

 

Dr bob, it's not worded as such in the Constitution. It is, however, worded as such in our Baptist Distinctives. Hence, we're bound by duty to uphold it, whether the idea is liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between.

Now, as far as the Constitution goes, the implication is in the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". The State may not many any official recognition of a religious establishment. Allowing certain religious influences in the State may (but does not always) recognize the establishment of religion, and would thus be illegal.