That is kind of the point isn't it?
-
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!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
What does Baptist mean now?
- Thread starter SolaSaint
- Start date
That is kind of the point isn't it?
That is kind of the point isn't it?
which is sad, as ALL of the above would be seen as baptists, for in our diversity we allow each one the right to inteprete and understand the scriptures, as long as staying within "orthodoxy!"
LOL then we can argue about what is orthodox
yep, the classic pensacostal baptists can hash it out with the Chasmatic ones what true Holy Ghost baptism is, arminian baptists debate NON cal ones on what extent free Will still reamins, and the cals can argue if it is reformed only that qualifies as being a cal!
I posted in the other thread (Baptist Name changes) that I can only think of 2 things that ALL Baptists would agree on:
1. Believer's baptism (after conversion...not babies)
2. Local Church Autonomy.
Aside from this, you can find Baptists (probably even on this board) who disagree about every other possible issue:
-Security of Salvation
-Fate of those who never hear the Gospel
-Charismatic gifts
-Whether God Causes evil
-Which Bible is the real one (KJV vs. others)
-etc...
1. Believer's baptism (after conversion...not babies)
2. Local Church Autonomy.
Aside from this, you can find Baptists (probably even on this board) who disagree about every other possible issue:
-Security of Salvation
-Fate of those who never hear the Gospel
-Charismatic gifts
-Whether God Causes evil
-Which Bible is the real one (KJV vs. others)
-etc...
I posted in the other thread (Baptist Name changes) that I can only think of 2 things that ALL Baptists would agree on:
1. Believer's baptism (after conversion...not babies)
2. Local Church Autonomy.
Aside from this, you can find Baptists (probably even on this board) who disagree about every other possible issue:
-Security of Salvation
-Fate of those who never hear the Gospel
-Charismatic gifts
-Whether God Causes evil
-Which Bible is the real one (KJV vs. others)
-etc...
Couple more to add that we all agree on!
local church autonomy
Seperation church and sate, in that no official US religion established
Each person free to get doctrines from scriptures, personal understanding, as long as orthodox, NOT the church telling us we MUST belive this or that!
Some other that most baptist believe..I posted in the other thread (Baptist Name changes) that I can only think of 2 things that ALL Baptists would agree on:
1. Believer's baptism (after conversion...not babies)
2. Local Church Autonomy.
Aside from this, you can find Baptists (probably even on this board) who disagree about every other possible issue:
-Security of Salvation
-Fate of those who never hear the Gospel
-Charismatic gifts
-Whether God Causes evil
-Which Bible is the real one (KJV vs. others)
-etc...
*Jesus is the son of God... born of a virgin.
*He voluntarily shed His blood and died on the cross in our place to take our punishment onto Himself (Romans 5:8, 1 John 1:7, 2:2). Since He is infinitely righteous, His death atoned for an infinite number of sins, past, present, and future. This makes it possible for us to be forgiven and to stand before God, spotless and cleansed of all our sins.
*After three days in the grave Jesus was brought back to life, and He is alive now and forevermore (John 20:27-28, Romans 14:9, Revelation 1:18).
*Salvation comes to us only through the grace of God.
Couple more to add that we all agree on!
local church autonomy
Seperation church and sate, in that no official US religion established
Each person free to get doctrines from scriptures, personal understanding, as long as orthodox, NOT the church telling us we MUST belive this or that!
Church autonomy: I said that
Separation...I don't know...some baptists thing government should put homosexuals to death.
Soul liberty...Some baptists believe everyone should believe exactly as they say.
Some other that most baptist believe..
*Jesus is the son of God... born of a virgin.
*He voluntarily shed His blood and died on the cross in our place to take our punishment onto Himself (Romans 5:8, 1 John 1:7, 2:2). Since He is infinitely righteous, His death atoned for an infinite number of sins, past, present, and future. This makes it possible for us to be forgiven and to stand before God, spotless and cleansed of all our sins.
*After three days in the grave Jesus was brought back to life, and He is alive now and forevermore (John 20:27-28, Romans 14:9, Revelation 1:18).
*Salvation comes to us only through the grace of God.
Most maybe, but not all...some liberal baptists deny the virgin birth & the physical resurection...
Interesting...I thought all baptist believed the basics of salvation?Most maybe, but not all...some liberal baptists deny the virgin birth & the physical resurection...
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Couple more to add that we all agree on!
local church autonomy
Seperation church and sate, in that no official US religion established
Each person free to get doctrines from scriptures, personal understanding, as long as orthodox, NOT the church telling us we MUST belive this or that!
And not another individual doing that, either, as one or some on here would like to do.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Interesting...I thought all baptist believed the basics of salvation?
Penal substitutionary atonement is not one of the basics of salvation.
So ALL Baptists truly believe in local church autonomy??!!??
Boy, that's a real surprise to me!!!!!!!!
If ALL Baptists honestly believe in local church autonomy as some people state, please tell me why then do so many (esp., but NOT always IFB) preachers condemn (often quite openly [say, e.g.,at some "Bible(?) conference" or maybe at a local area pastors' "fellowship," etc.]) some other BC for such things as:
1) Having a bus/van ministry?
2) Having a childrens/junior church?
3) Using 'slides' to show the lyrics to a hymn/"praise" song(s) rather than spending money on hymnbooks?
4) Passing offering plates instead of having the congregation come forward and put their offerings/tithes in a box?
5) Having (or NOT having) outreach ministries such as AWANA, Youth For Christ, Fellowship of Christian Athletics, etc.?
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
My point is this: If Baptists REALLY hold to local church autonomy, do they have the right to (often times very boldly [brazenly{?}]) come out and condemn/"unchurch" other BC's on such things as I've mentioned above---most of which are not really very clearly and/or openly condemed or condoned in God's Word?
Please note that I'm not suggesting that there may be situations arise over some of these (especially with #5) that may require a certain amount of discernment in that these things don't start becoming "an end unto itself/themselve(s)."
But, even then, wouldn't it be more "Christ-like" to perhaps take that BC's pastor aside and voice one's concerns about what a certain Baptist preacher(s) may perceive to be a potential, or maybe even a REAL, "problem" before we publicly cruicify that BC for doing something that God's Word is, for the most part, relatively silent about?
What do you think?
P. S. --- I ask these things because about 30-35 years ago I was in a church (not as a pastor since so far at least the immutable God hasn't seen fit to "call this 66+ YO [46.5 as a child of God] never-married, celibate male into the pulpit ministry), I was in a Bible college ministry that eventually folded---due in almost entirely because 2-3 self-appointed IFB preachers viewed several of the above-mentioned items that the church of which I was a member claimed that because we did (or DIDN'T do) some of the above-mentioned things, that this IFB had now "Gone 'Liberal' and/or 'compromised' and/or 'gone modern,'" and thus was "no longer a TRUE BC and therefore her Bible college was unworthy of any/all financial support/sending "our" young folks to go to that college.
Needless to say, that church subsequently had to disband its Bible college within a few years of that happening.
Boy, that's a real surprise to me!!!!!!!!
If ALL Baptists honestly believe in local church autonomy as some people state, please tell me why then do so many (esp., but NOT always IFB) preachers condemn (often quite openly [say, e.g.,at some "Bible(?) conference" or maybe at a local area pastors' "fellowship," etc.]) some other BC for such things as:
1) Having a bus/van ministry?
2) Having a childrens/junior church?
3) Using 'slides' to show the lyrics to a hymn/"praise" song(s) rather than spending money on hymnbooks?
4) Passing offering plates instead of having the congregation come forward and put their offerings/tithes in a box?
5) Having (or NOT having) outreach ministries such as AWANA, Youth For Christ, Fellowship of Christian Athletics, etc.?
I could go on, but I think you get the picture.
My point is this: If Baptists REALLY hold to local church autonomy, do they have the right to (often times very boldly [brazenly{?}]) come out and condemn/"unchurch" other BC's on such things as I've mentioned above---most of which are not really very clearly and/or openly condemed or condoned in God's Word?
Please note that I'm not suggesting that there may be situations arise over some of these (especially with #5) that may require a certain amount of discernment in that these things don't start becoming "an end unto itself/themselve(s)."
But, even then, wouldn't it be more "Christ-like" to perhaps take that BC's pastor aside and voice one's concerns about what a certain Baptist preacher(s) may perceive to be a potential, or maybe even a REAL, "problem" before we publicly cruicify that BC for doing something that God's Word is, for the most part, relatively silent about?
What do you think?
P. S. --- I ask these things because about 30-35 years ago I was in a church (not as a pastor since so far at least the immutable God hasn't seen fit to "call this 66+ YO [46.5 as a child of God] never-married, celibate male into the pulpit ministry), I was in a Bible college ministry that eventually folded---due in almost entirely because 2-3 self-appointed IFB preachers viewed several of the above-mentioned items that the church of which I was a member claimed that because we did (or DIDN'T do) some of the above-mentioned things, that this IFB had now "Gone 'Liberal' and/or 'compromised' and/or 'gone modern,'" and thus was "no longer a TRUE BC and therefore her Bible college was unworthy of any/all financial support/sending "our" young folks to go to that college.
Needless to say, that church subsequently had to disband its Bible college within a few years of that happening.
Hi Ktn4eg, some studies indicate humans can be catigorized into 4 groups, 1) social folks who like to fellowship, 2) sellers who like to persuade others, 3) controllers who want to lead, even if they do not know the way, and 4) contemplaters who study the data but are uncertain as to what to do.
Sadly, group number three contributes disproportionally to our pastorial team. They not only want to tell their flock what the bible means, they want to tell others as well. To use a modern term, they tend to be control freaks.
I think our schools do not stress avoidance of being manipulative. If you look at many of our church splits, they were really struggles over power. But while it is easy to describe the disease, not so easy to find a cure because all of us have the disease to some degree.
Sadly, group number three contributes disproportionally to our pastorial team. They not only want to tell their flock what the bible means, they want to tell others as well. To use a modern term, they tend to be control freaks.
I think our schools do not stress avoidance of being manipulative. If you look at many of our church splits, they were really struggles over power. But while it is easy to describe the disease, not so easy to find a cure because all of us have the disease to some degree.
Some Liberal Baptists deny the virgin birth [of Christ] and the physical resurrection [i.e the empty tomb]? Can you provide your basis for this assertion, 12 Strings?
See below for a single example...I'm not saying it is common, but that the modernist/liberal interpretation of scripture from the early 20th Century has not been without takers among those who call themselves baptists:
(From: http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3273)In 1918 Fosdick became the preaching minister at a newly formed Presbyterian Church which had resulted from the merger of three Presbyterian churches in midtown New York. Thus began a period of six years during which Baptist Fosdick became embroiled in the modernist-fundamentalist controversy, which rocked all the major denominations but especially the Presbyterian Church. As the controversy began to emerge, Fosdick preached a sermon titled "Shall the Fundamentalists Win?" It was, he thought, a plea for fair play and for a church tolerant enough to allow for a diversity of theological viewpoints. Unfortunately the sermon had an unintended effect, exposing instead Fosdick’s own liberal leanings. As he later admitted:
"The trouble was, of course, that in stating the liberal and fundamentalist positions, I had stood in a Presbyterian pulpit and said frankly what the modernist position on some points was -- the virgin birth no longer accepted as historic fact, the literal inerrancy of the Scriptures incredible, the second coming of Christ from the skies an outmoded phrasing of hope" [ibid., p. 148].
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, meeting in 1923 and to a large degree under the spell of arch-fundamentalist and dynamic orator William Jennings Bryan, adopted a resolution asking the Presbytery of New York to take such action "as will require the preaching and teaching in the First Presbyterian Church of New York City to conform to the system of doctrines taught in the Confession of Faith."
This resolution also specified some of the doctrines which Fosdick’s opponents believed were in the confession: biblical inerrancy, virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, physical resurrection and the second coming. Fosdick, of course, could not accept the mandate of this resolution, and though the First Presbyterian Church tried to work out a compromise so that they could keep him, the controversy became so raging and bitter -- one fundamentalist minister referred to him as "a religious outlaw" and as "the Jesse James of the theological world" -- that Fosdick resigned and preached his final sermon at First Presbyterian in March 1925. In that farewell sermon he said: "They call me a heretic. Well, I am a heretic if conventional orthodoxy is the standard. I should be ashamed to live in this generation and not be a heretic" (ibid., p. 176).
(Harry Emerson Fosdick went on to pastor a Baptist Church that was more accepting of his views).
Also, From Liberalrev.com (liberal baptist minister):
How Do I Know I Am A Christian?
Thanks for the question.
Many Christians focus on beliefs. Christians believe this and this and this. Usually it involves the Nicene Creed (listed below), the virgin birth, something about resurrection, etc. etc. etc.
Beliefs are important, but not as important as conservative Christians make them out to be. If you believe in a day of judgment (I don’t. I’m a universalist.), do you really believe God is going to cross-examine you on your beliefs? I think a more likely angle is God looking at what you did with your life, particularly how you treated other people.
This week one of my assignments has been to offer a brief initial statement describing essential elements of my personal faith which I have listed below. What are the essential elements of your faith?
Predestination – We are predestined for communion with God and each other. The love of God ultimately will be irresistible. God’s love will not fail. I agree with Origen, all will be saved, including “the Devil.”
The world is the point, not the church.
In order of importance: God, creation (human beings, creatures, universe), Christianity.
The equality of all people.
God has no favorites.
God has never given any people inhabited land.
God has never told anybody to kill another person.
One’s sexual orientation and gender identity is not a
sin.
The Bible is the church’s book, not the Word of God. We are Christians, not Biblians.
All sources for our faith/theology (Bible, experience, reason, church history/tradition, science) are problematic. All sources are important, with no source allowed to trump other sources.
Last edited by a moderator:
In wars of the past, where men openly marched in four columns, a term for an enemy agent was "fifth columnist" means an invisible insider collaborator.
In our war for truth, against the Father of Lies, liberals say they are conservatives, say they are Baptists, say they are Christian, but they are fifth columnists. And whatever the malfeasance they are engaged in, they charge their opponents as doing it in a worse way. So the first fingerprint of a "liberal" is they use the two wrongs make a right argument. Then although they pay lip service to "scripture alone" they rewrite any part that conflicts with their man-made doctrine. For example the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, just as it does gluttony. Now I am overweight, I eat more than I need to eat. Clearly I am a serial sinner. But I know it is sin, I know the bible says it is sin, and I do not accommodate my behavior by saying it is a little sin in the scheme of things or many do it or whatever. To do so would mark me as a liberal who slices and dices scripture.
I see I am rambling, but the bottom line is just because someone says he or she is a baptist, does not make he or she a baptist, but if a fifth columnist, they succeed is destroying the Baptist name.
In our war for truth, against the Father of Lies, liberals say they are conservatives, say they are Baptists, say they are Christian, but they are fifth columnists. And whatever the malfeasance they are engaged in, they charge their opponents as doing it in a worse way. So the first fingerprint of a "liberal" is they use the two wrongs make a right argument. Then although they pay lip service to "scripture alone" they rewrite any part that conflicts with their man-made doctrine. For example the Bible condemns homosexual behavior, just as it does gluttony. Now I am overweight, I eat more than I need to eat. Clearly I am a serial sinner. But I know it is sin, I know the bible says it is sin, and I do not accommodate my behavior by saying it is a little sin in the scheme of things or many do it or whatever. To do so would mark me as a liberal who slices and dices scripture.
I see I am rambling, but the bottom line is just because someone says he or she is a baptist, does not make he or she a baptist, but if a fifth columnist, they succeed is destroying the Baptist name.
Church autonomy: I said that
Separation...I don't know...some baptists thing government should put homosexuals to death.
Soul liberty...Some baptists believe everyone should believe exactly as they say.
meant that the Governemt cannot tell us how to worship , and edit all messages to be political correct!
And that we do not have only ONE way to see the scriptures, as the catholic church has through its "infallibility"
I see I am rambling, but the bottom line is just because someone says he or she is a baptist, does not make he or she a baptist, but if a fifth columnist, they succeed is destroying the Baptist name.
I suppose I would simply state it differently...that due to the WIDE divergence of baptists beliefs...the ONLY way to know if one is a baptist is if he or she says they are...but just because one is a self-proclaimed baptist does not mean they are a Christian.