What constitutes a "Baptist"

[Artimaeus]

Originally posted by BrianT:
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.

True, but, what they "heard" was thankfully received correctly as the "word of God"

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.

I Thes 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God

Because as Paul's audience received what Paul said as NOT the word of men "but as it is in truth, the word of God". We also receive the whole Bible NOT as the word of men "but as it is in truth, the word of God"

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

Pretty much

individual soul liberty...(definition)

I was familiar with the concept, just not the term used for it. Thanks. I also did not know that it was a Baptist distinctive. I guess that makes me a BAPTiST and now maybe a BAPTisT.

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

Mostly past experience. We believe that God has the 1st priority in our obedience and the state, of course, believes that it should be our 1st priority. Hence the constant battle. If you doubt this, just ask yourself this, if there is ever a conflict, which does the state want you to do?

 

[T.U.L.I.P.]

I think an important part of being Baptist is being a 5 point Calvinist(i.e. believing in Sovereign Grace). Read the London Baptist Confession of 1689 as well as Spurgeon and other historic Baptist writings

 

[go2church]

Wrong, but nice try!

 

[T.U.L.I.P.]

Could you elaborate a little please? We could all just go around in circles saying you're wrong, no you're wrong, etc but if we don't put at least a reason or two in there it will sound like my 3 year old sister trying to argue(only worse)

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by BrianT:
I have some questions about some (not all) the verses posted. Anyone can answer.

Nothing intense, and not looking for debate:

I'll add some other verses to the list that may be more clear.

Originally posted by HeDied4U:
1).Biblical Authority

Christ looked to the Scriptures as authoritative - Matthew 21:42; Matthew 22:29; Matthew 8:4; Luke 16:31; John 5:39, etc. (You can do a word search of the Gospels for Scripture, Moses, Law, Written, and Prophets for more)

The Apostles used Scripture as authoritative - Acts 17:2; Acts 18:28; Romans 1:2; etc.

The converted believers looked at Scripture as authoritative - Acts 17:11

Peter equates Paul's Apostolic Letters as to Old Testament Scripture - 2 Peter 3:16

2).Autonomy of the Local Church

Acts 6:3; 1Corinthians 5:4-5; 2 Corinthians 2:6; Revelation 2&3

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Adam: 4).Two Ordinances

Brian: What, precisely, do you believe the difference to be between "ordinance" and "sacrament"?</font>[/QUOTE]The term "sacrament" implies that these acts (specifically baptism and the Eucharist) are a means to God's Grace. Neither of these acts are salvific. An ordinance is a decree set forth by Christ which we follow out of obedience after Grace has been received.

5).Individual Soul Liberty

Soul Liberty is the logical conclusion one draws from recognizing individual accountability to God. Romans 14:11-12 is a good start.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Adam:
7).Two Offices 1 Timothy 3:1-13; Acts 20:17-38; Philippians 1:1

Brian: What, precisely, do you believe the difference to be between "bishop" and "pastor"?</font>[/QUOTE]There is no difference within the post-Apostolic churches. Other synonyms are "elder," "shepherd," "overseer", and "presbyter." The job descriptions of each are held by the same office.

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

This is the most dificult one on which to put a finger. Acts 5:29 is probably the best Scriptural defense. The whole of the New Testament certainly shows the need of such a requirement. As for the issue of taxes, The principle of Seperation of Church and State has long been championed by the Baptists. If the state were to collect a "church tax" it would allow them control over the delegation and spending of that money. The same can be said of paying prison chaplains, non-believers being required to lead prayer in school, etc. Government run church would be a very self-defeating proposition.

Seperation of Church and State is probably the greatest contribution to civilization as a whole that the Baptists have ever given, though I'm sure some may disagree with that.

[ July 12, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Christ looked to the Scriptures as authoritative - Matthew 21:42; Matthew 22:29; Matthew 8:4; Luke 16:31; John 5:39, etc. (You can do a word search of the Gospels for Scripture, Moses, Law, Written, and Prophets for more)

Hi Clint, thanks for your response.

I agree scripture is authoritative, and that numerous scriptures say this. I just didn't understand how that particular scripture (1 Thess 2:13) was talking about this.

You mentioned Matt 8:4 and Luke 16:31 - is there a typo in those references? I don't see how they apply.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
2).Autonomy of the Local Church

Acts 6:3; 1Corinthians 5:4-5; 2 Corinthians 2:6; Revelation 2&3
</font>[/QUOTE]Help me out here, Clint.

How does any of these teach autonomy? Some allude to a church being "local", but none speak of autonomy, as far as I understand them.

Soul Liberty is the logical conclusion one draws from recognizing individual accountability to God. Romans 14:11-12 is a good start.

How far does soul liberty extend?

Seperation of Church and State is probably the greatest contribution to civilization as a whole that the Baptists have ever given, though I'm sure some may disagree with that.

I can understand separation of church and state when state is corrupt and/or secular. But this reasoning is dependent on circumstances, and not on scripture. Combining church and state does not appear to be inherently wrong, but it can be under certian circumstances. The ancient Jews, when not under oppression, combined church and state. When Christ returns and establishes his theocracy, it will be a combination of church and state. I guess I'm having a little difficulting understanding why this is a Baptist "distinctive", since the source for this disctinctive comes from reasoning based on external circumstances, instead of from scripture (and indeed seems to oppose a Biblical principle where sometimes combination of church and state not only works, but is the desired choice).

Just trying to sort through some Baptist thought processes.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by BrianT:
You mentioned Matt 8:4 and Luke 16:31 - is there a typo in those references? I don't see how they apply.

In Matthew 8:34 and Luke 16:31, Christ is referring his audience to commands made by Moses and the Prophets. The source that his audience had for these commands was Old Testament Scripture.

As for the 1Thessalonian reference, I do not wish to speak for Adam, but it is generally thought among Baptists that when one reads in the Bible the phrase "Word of God," it refers to Scripture. I generally do not use these as examples because it begs the question, as you noted.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
2).Autonomy of the Local Church

Acts 6:3; 1Corinthians 5:4-5; 2 Corinthians 2:6; Revelation 2&3
</font>[/QUOTE]Help me out here, Clint.

How does any of these teach autonomy? Some allude to a church being "local", but none speak of autonomy, as far as I understand them.</font>[/QUOTE]The Corinthian references show that it was the autonomous congregation making the decision to expell and take back in the immoral brother from the church. Paul urges and argues for this to happen, but allows the congregation to make the decision by majority vote.

How far does soul liberty extend?

That is a discussion for another thread.

The term "liberty" Is a bit misleading. We are ALL accountable to God. That includes believers and non-believers. Paul also warns against using "liberty" as "libertinism" in most of his Epistles.

I can understand separation of church and state when state is corrupt and/or secular. But this reasoning is dependent on circumstances, and not on scripture. Combining church and state does not appear to be inherently wrong, but it can be under certian circumstances. The ancient Jews, when not under oppression, combined church and state. When Christ returns and establishes his theocracy, it will be a combination of church and state. I guess I'm having a little difficulting understanding why this is a Baptist "distinctive", since the source for this disctinctive comes from reasoning based on external circumstances, instead of from scripture (and indeed seems to oppose a Biblical principle where sometimes combination of church and state not only works, but is the desired choice).

Yes, the Jews did combine the two though it was not the Will of God as attested in 1Samuel 8:7. The following stories throughout 1&2Kings show that the earthly monarchy was soon swayed and seduced by paganism. Despite a few good rulers, the kings led the Jews into apostacy which led to exile. As I say, it is a hard distinctive to put verses to, particularly New Testament verses.

Another example shown in the Old Testament is the story of Daniel and Darius in Daniel 6. When the state can mandate worship, corrupt men will manipulate the law and the believers (as well as the king in this case) suffer.

When Christ returns, He will establish the New Jerusalem at whose head will be God, the only uncorruptable being in the universe. Since we as believers already acknowledge Christ as the Head of the church, this will not really be much of a transition for us, governmentally speaking.

 

[Clint Kritzer]

I forgot. The reference to Revelation 2&3 show that each church was accountable for its own actions. Therefore, the decisions made by a specific church do not affect other churches in the Eyes of Christ.

I am not sure why Acts 6:3 needs further explanation. It shows that the members (brothers) in the primitive church in Jerusalem chose the seven of their own accord as opposed to the Apostles mandating the position.

[ July 12, 2003, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
In Matthew 8:34 and Luke 16:31, Christ is referring his audience to commands made by Moses and the Prophets. The source that his audience had for these commands was Old Testament Scripture.

I guess I can see that for Matt 8:4. Luke 16:31 however, says "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." This verse talks about "hearing" Moses and the prophets. Some of the prophets didn't even write scripture (e.g. Elijah). So I don't see how this verse deals specifically with scripture, since the verse would include oral teaching as well.

Related to Biblical authority, most Baptist confessions and statements of faith, etc., say not only is scripture authoritative, but that scripture *alone* is authoritative. I've looked at all the scripture passages they give to support this (2 Tim 3:16, Rom 15:4, etc.), and nowhere is "alone" ever mentioned. So why do Baptists believe so strongly in scripture "alone" when scripture itself doesn't teach this?

The Corinthian references show that it was the autonomous congregation making the decision to expell and take back in the immoral brother from the church. Paul urges and argues for this to happen, but allows the congregation to make the decision by majority vote.

I still don't see the autonomy aspect in these passages. Can you point it out specifically?

About Rev 2-3, yes this is talking about individual churches, but it doesn't preclude a non-autonomous system.

I am not sure why Acts 6:3 needs further explanation. It shows that the members (brothers) in the primitive church in Jerusalem chose the seven of their own accord as opposed to the Apostles mandating the position.

But the Apostles can't make every decision in every church. A non-autonomous system doesn't require all decisions to be made directly from the Apostles. Even in this passage (Acts 6) we don't see the primitive Church deciding on their own they needed seven men to handle "daily ministration", but idea came from the apostles, who told them to pick seven men. If anything, this seems to speak *against* autonomy, because the people obeyed the apostles instead of saying "no, we're autonomous, we choose to pick 5 men instead and you have no authority to tell us what to do."

Yes, the Jews did combine the two though it was not the Will of God as attested in 1Samuel 8:7.

Actually, that passage doesn't say a combination of church and state was against God's will, but how they formed it (they wanted a human king in their government instead of God being their only king in government).

Another example shown in the Old Testament is the story of Daniel and Darius in Daniel 6. When the state can mandate worship, corrupt men will manipulate the law and the believers (as well as the king in this case) suffer.

I agree. But this corruption is not inherent in combination of church and state, but rather because of abuse of that combination.

Brian

[ July 12, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: BrianT ]

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Luke 16:31 however, says "And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead." This verse talks about "hearing" Moses and the prophets. Some of the prophets didn't even write scripture (e.g. Elijah). So I don't see how this verse deals specifically with scripture, since the verse would include oral teaching as well.

The Prophets and Moses were "heard" from reading of Scripture. Check out Acts 15:21. Luke 4:14 gives us an account of Christ Himself reading in the synagogue.

Related to Biblical authority, most Baptist confessions and statements of faith, etc., say not only is scripture authoritative, but that scripture *alone* is authoritative. I've looked at all the scripture passages they give to support this (2 Tim 3:16, Rom 15:4, etc.), and nowhere is "alone" ever mentioned. So why do Baptists believe so strongly in scripture "alone" when scripture itself doesn't teach this?

Can you provide any other examples, using Scripture, of anything that has authority other than the Scriptures? (Remember, you yourself have admitted that Scripture is authoritaive.) Even what we know of what Christ said is recorded only in Scripture. Certainly all people recognize the neccessity of teaching and preaching, but if the lessons do not line up with Scripture, they are erroneous.

Much of Christ's criticisms of the Pharisees revolved around their corruption of and additions to Scripture (that is to say, oral tradition. If you have the NIV study Bible, look at the chart called "Jewish sects" on or near the page with Matthew 23 for a summary of their accepted traditions or you can click here ). Matthew 23 goes into this concept rather extensively.

I still don't see the autonomy aspect in these passages. Can you point it out specifically?

Perhaps we are not defining "autonomy" the same way. Autonomy is the ability to self-govern. An autonomous congregation has the authority to decide its own course in following the Will of God.

1Corinthians 5
4When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

Paul does not say that he has made the decision even though he has pronounced judgment. It is left to the assembly to cast the man out. We gain further insight into this event from the passage from 2Corinthians 2:

6For such a one, this punishment by the majority is enough, 7so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. 9For this is why I wrote, that I might test you and know whether you are obedient in everything.

We see here that it was a "majority" of the church at Corinth that inflicted the punishment, that they now had an option (a recommendation) from Paul to bring him back in, and that they always had a choice in the matter as shown in verse 9.

About Rev 2-3, yes this is talking about individual churches, but it doesn't preclude a non-autonomous system.

Then from whom were the churches receiving erroneous instruction that caused Christ to criticize them?

But the Apostles can't make every decision in every church. A non-autonomous system doesn't require all decisions to be made directly from the Apostles. Even in this passage (Acts 6) we don't see the primitive Church deciding on their own they needed seven men to handle "daily ministration", but idea came from the apostles, who told them to pick seven men. If anything, this seems to speak *against* autonomy, because the people obeyed the apostles instead of saying "no, we're autonomous, we choose to pick 5 men instead and you have no authority to tell us what to do."

The Apostles were the leaders of the church (a fledgling church at that) and the converts were following all recommendations gladly. Even so, the decision of who these men would be was left to the assembly.

Remember also that the Apostles were direct emmisaries of Christ. We have nothing that equates that today. A modern church may likely debate how many deacons are necessary. Many churches write in to their constitutions how many deacons are elected according to overall membership.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Yes, the Jews did combine the two though it was not the Will of God as attested in 1Samuel 8:7.

Actually, that passage doesn't say a combination of church and state was against God's will, but how they formed it (they wanted a human king in their government instead of God being their only king in government).</font>[/QUOTE]The king ended up having religious power. That was evidently the norm of the time. There is little question that political leadership is required in even the most basic governmental structures. I don't believe the Bible ever recommends anarchy, as is what happened at Babel. Whether they are called king, emporer, president, or prime minister, any governmental official that holds the reins to man's religion will eventually fail.
Saying that God is a "member" of a political body wouldn't work. We can't even pull it together on this board, much less in a government. This leads us back to rendering unto Caeser what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Leave them seperated. They serve different functions.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
Another example shown in the Old Testament is the story of Daniel and Darius in Daniel 6. When the state can mandate worship, corrupt men will manipulate the law and the believers (as well as the king in this case) suffer.

I agree. But this corruption is not inherent in combination of church and state, but rather because of abuse of that combination.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ah! But there's the rub. How do we insure against such corruption? The Israelites held it together for three reigns (more or less) with Saul, David, and Solomon. After that, the corruption was almost unstoppable.

 

[BrianT]

Hi Clint,

I'm a little reluctant to get into some of these issues this too deeply on this board at this time. But I'll respond and see what happens.

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Can you provide any other examples, using Scripture, of anything that has authority other than the Scriptures? (Remember, you yourself have admitted that Scripture is authoritaive.)

Actually, I think I can provide examples.

In 2 Thess 2:15, Paul exhorts his readers to stand fast and hold the traditions they had been taught, by word or epistle. A few verses later (3:6), Paul even commanded his readers, in the name of Christ, to avoid those not keeping the tradition they had received. Numerous other passages talk about "hearing" and "preaching" - oral communication of God's word, not just God's word in written form. I don't think ALL tradition is authoritative, but obviously scripture says there are authoritative traditions.

What is "the pillar and ground of the truth"? According to scripture, it is not the written word of God, but the church (1 Tim 3:15). Jesus said the Spirit would guide the church (John 16:12–13).

What these scriptures say is evident in the early church - the church grew and thrived, even under persecution, *without* the NT being canonized or even completed. They had the authority of preaching and the apostles teachings. The early church, even after all the NT scriptures were written, used its authority to declare which of the writings should be in the canon of scripture: scripture itself doesn't tell us which books belong in the NT, the church's authority and tradition does.

Put another way: by what "authority" do you believe the book of Revelation or James or Hebrews should be in the Bible?

Much of Christ's criticisms of the Pharisees revolved around their corruption of and additions to Scripture (that is to say, oral tradition.

Only where it went against established doctrine. Jesus, while even recognizing there were false traditions that made the word of God ineffectual (Matt 15:6-9) and the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees, still instructed the faithful Jews to "practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice" (Matt. 23:2–3). He didn't add "but only do what they say if you can find it in the OT scriptures". Oral tradition is not intrinsically wrong, but is if it goes directly against scripture. Believers before and after Christ relied on oral tradition, as well as scripture.

Perhaps we are not defining "autonomy" the same way. Autonomy is the ability to self-govern. An autonomous congregation has the authority to decide its own course in following the Will of God.

Thats a good enough working definition for me, I guess. It's interesting that you say each congregation has its own "authority" though, in light of the discussion above about scripture-only.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />About Rev 2-3, yes this is talking about individual churches, but it doesn't preclude a non-autonomous system.

Then from whom were the churches receiving erroneous instruction that caused Christ to criticize them?
</font>[/QUOTE]False teachers, both internal and external.

I will have to think more about your autonomy comments.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
I agree. But this corruption is not inherent in combination of church and state, but rather because of abuse of that combination.

Ah! But there's the rub. How do we insure against such corruption? The Israelites held it together for three reigns (more or less) with Saul, David, and Solomon. After that, the corruption was almost unstoppable.
</font>[/QUOTE]Something is not inherently wrong just because it can be, or even usually be, corrupted and/or abused.

I'm not as much interested in discussing the pros/cons of combining church and state, as I am in seeing if there are scriptural reasons (e.g. doctrines) that teach against it - in other words, what Biblical reasons there are for Baptists to make this a "distinctive", rather than just rational ones.

Thanks for your answers thus far,
Brian

 

[go2church]

Being a five point calvanist is not a requirement for being baptist. Never has been never will be. There are five pointers that are baptist as well as no pointers that are baptist.
And when did Spurgeon become the final authority on what is or isn't a baptist? You do realize he exchanged pulpits with non calvinists?

 

[donnA]

Bible is sole authority for Faith and Practice
Regenerated (born again) church membership
Autonomy (self-governing) of the local church
Priesthood of the Believer/Soul Liberty
Separation of Church from State control
Immersion/Lord's Supper are church ordinances, not sacraments
Separation Ethically (from the world) and Ecclesiastically (from ecumenicism, etc)


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


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

Great answers, I noticed these on the lists

Saved and baptized membership

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

IMO even if someone has the other beliefs(I have known peole had these beleifs and were not baptists), if they are not a member of a Baptist church they are only fooling theirselves, they are not serious about being a baptist.

 

[rsr]

The principle of separation lies in experience and in the largely negative example of the New Testament.

Baptists, like other second-wave Reformation groups, were persecuted both by the Roman Church and by the Church of England. Religious liberty seemed not only a good idea, but the best. The history of state churches is not encouraging; I can't think of a single one that did not persecute its opponents through the power of the state; I will stand corrected should I find one.

In Ephesians, husbands are told to love their wives "as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her." Christ died for the church, not for the state. We should not yoke the church with a secular state, which by its nature is flawed and concerned with temporal affairs.

Jesus and the writers of the New Testament seem not to consider government all that important; Paul spends little time considering it. Most of his advice is practical: don't break the law because order is essential and you don't want to bring the church into disrepute. (There probably were practical reasons as well; Christians had enough problems - the calumny of the Lord's Supper being human sacrifice, for example - that they didn't need to be thought of as common criminals as well.)

Separation has been a basic Baptist belief since the early confessions. Actually, it is an extension of Luther's beliefs. Ever since the "Here I stand" speech, freedom of conscience and religious liberty were implicit in the reformed church; the Baptists just took it to its logical conclusion.

If religious liberty is to be the norm, it follows that the state and the church must be separate; as the founders said, such a marriage corrupts both: The church's vision becomes focused on earthly things and the state proclaims its fallible rulings as the Voice of God. Not a good situation.

Sorry to be rambling.