What Does it take to be a "Baptist"?

Tuor has a good point. "Baptist" doesn't really narrow it down much. For example, my Baptist church would have much more in common with a conservative Presbyterian church (not that we're at all Presbyterian) that it would with churches following the beliefs of some here who are "Baptists". I guess that's just the way it is, but it does trouble me when we accept such a broad definition of "Baptist", and at the same time pretend that the term means something.

 

The term "baptist" is neither consrvaitve nore liberal inherently.

Baptist ecclesiology is not a liberal/conservative issue.

Baptist belief abot baptism is nt a liberal/conservative issue.

Baptist belief about competency of the soul is not a libveral/conservative issue.

In fact the only distinctives that can be said to even be close to liberal/conservative issues are the Lordship of Christ and the authority of Scripture. But both liberals and conservatives calim to be under Christ's Lordship.

Really I guess it comes down to authority of Scripture. Exceot that historically (meaning in the confessions) it has been called the authority of scripture, without qualifiers like inerrancy. (Though I think I recall the confessions making claims of inspiration that are inconsistent with liberal theology.. someone help me out here?).

So whilw I agree that "baptist" means nothing in terms of defining one as a liberla or conservative, it still syas a great deal. It defines congregational polity, a stand on church/state issues, individual responsibility in faith... it syas a great deal indeed!

 

Latreia,

I think that there may be more to your point about "authority of scripture" than meets the eye.

Many of the other issues that are divisive here on the BB and in some churches are important in their own right, but much more so because at the heart of the issue you will find the issue of scriptural authority. Those who hold to scriptural authority in any meaningful sense will come to one conclusion, and those who don't will come to another.

Those who don't will eventually find themselves outside even nominal Christianity but it may take another generation or two for that to work out.

[ September 28, 2002, 11:40 PM: Message edited by: Pennsylvania Jim ]

 

tuor,
I'm a baptist ministers wife and let me tell you a true Baptist church would not accept your authority to practice if you did this. I know people who have did this. My husband's calling was reconzizeed by our local church when he was ordained to the ministry. They then gave us authority to go out and start another church. This new work started out as a mission till we got off our feet enough to be organized and made independent from our home church. The reason Baptist's don't recongize preachers starting churches without anothers approval is because these pastors haven't been aquately trained and are not recongized by that body by having a calling. I have experienced this directly. My husband's parents were baptized and aloud to be members of the church living together. It took a long time to get this straighten out because of the heresy's this guy was teaching. This is just one thing I have mentioned, there is more.He claimed to be a Baptist. He just tacked the name on. I'm getting tired I need to get to bed. Hopefully you can understand this. If you have questions I will gladly answer them.

 

Tuor,

"So you are saying it has more to do with politics. (i.e. seperation of church and state as opposed to a state religion)"

Not really. There is a theology behind tose things. But the theological issues do not lend themselves, IMO, to being defines in ternms of being theologically "liberal" or "conservative".

"When it comes down to individual responsibiblity, I think most protestants would agree with this 'distinctiveness'. We are all responsible to God. God is the one who is going to judge us."

That would be why these things are less and less being called "distinctives". They are no longer truly "distinctive" of baptists. There are a whole slew of denominations whose theology is bascially baptistic.

More often, in the newer materials I read, they are called "baptist emphases", things tht baptists highlight.

"Would I be able to start my own "Baptist" church?"

Assuming your theology is basically baptist, sure. After all congregational autonomy is one of the biggies.

Mind you baptists historically have affirmed an "associational principle" whereby we affirm the need to associate with other congregtations for edigfcation, mission, fellowship, etc. That's how you get the various conventions.

If you started your church entioerely on your own, you would lack recognition, but that, for baptists, is irrelevant.

 

No, I haven't said that. I have said that there are things which define baptists, like polity and a certain theology of the church. You can't, for example, hold to an episcopal ecclesiology and be a baptist, or claim to be.

But episcopal ecclesiology vs. congregational is not a liberal/conserative issue.

I find lots of people want to define baptist along liberal/conservative lines, but the defining marks or emphases of baptists are not things that lend themselves all that well to being debated along those lines.

As I said, the exceptions are autoirty of scriupture and lordship of Christ. But even thses don't lend themselves all that well to a liberal/conservative distinction. Lordship is claimed by both sides, as is authoirty. And autority historically has not been defined bya particular view of inspiration or inerrancy, though it might possibly be argued that it presupposes one.

 

No, it isn't political. Congregational polity has a specific theology of the church that is incompatible with episoplaism. You simply misunderstand. It isn't a polity thing without theological foundation. Congregational polity holds that each assmebled chuch is itslef the Body of Christ, not just a part of the Body. That is why there are baptist churches, but no Baptist Church in the same sense as there is a Roman Catholic Church or a Presbyterian Church.

Another example, and one that might be less confusing to you, is baptism. Baptists hold that baptism for believers, and is by immersion. Their theology of that ordiance usd to be unique. Now it is quite common. Baptists did not choose to be called Baptists. They were called that by others, though we have accepted the name.

Anyeway, the issue of baptism is not realy a liberal/conservative thing. It is an exegetical thing, where conservatives can come to differing views.

So again, the answer is yes there are theological issues that define a baptist, but not ones that are easliy labeld as conservative vs. liberal.

 

Tuor:

My friend, I'm afraid that this is a correct assertion in our day and age. The BB seems to be proof of that. Of course, you might also ask a similar question - "What is an Evangelical?" It would be much of the same. Or, "What is a Christian?" We have extended our boundaries too far. All that matters for many now is, "What Jesus means to ME." We live in a day of individualistic faith with an emphasis on personal autonomy. This is neither right, nor safe.

Rev. G

 

B Biblical Authority
A Autonomy of the Local Church
P Priesthod of all Believers
T Two Ordinances (baptism, communion)
I Individual Soul Liberty
S Saved, Baptized, Church membership
T Two offices (Pastor, Deacon)
S Separation of Church and State

That just about sums it up in a nutshell. Of course there are alot of Churches that are "baptistic" in their beliefs without the name Baptist. Dont forget, the name was tagged on us by our opposition for not going along with infant baptism. (Ana-baptists)

 

Friend, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

As far as the acrostic:

B Biblical Authority
The posts on the Baptist Board have proven that there is no agreement here.

A Autonomy of the Local Church
How far does this autonomy actually stretch? This ignores the fact that the Body of Christ reaches beyond geographical boundaries. Also, this can be used along with the denial of Biblical Authority so that an "autonomous church" ordains women as elders, homosexuals as deacons, and the like (and yet still call themselves Baptist).

P Priesthod of all Believers
The "Priesthood of the Believers" is a Protestant doctrine (defined by Luther), not distinctly Baptist.

T Two Ordinances (baptism, communion)
This is also Protestant.

I Individual Soul Liberty
I agree that this is a uniquely "Baptist" doctrine, although you can't really find it (defined) until the advent of E. Y. Mullins (20th Century).

S Saved, Baptized, Church membership
Is this another way of saying a regenerate church membership? Baptists have historically been unique in this, but it has gone out the window with shallow evangelism and cheap grace. We really no longer hold to this (in reality).

T Two offices (Pastor, Deacon)
Yes, elders and deacons. But is this uniquely Baptist?

S Separation of Church and State
Yes, Baptists were the ones who got this one going.

Nice acrostic, it really is, but it does not fit the "modern" mold.

Rev. G

 

"There is only one Body of Christ. According to the Bible, the Body of Christ is the elect. If Baptists believe that only their congregation represents the Body of Christ, then the road to salvation is truely narrow."

You misunderstand. It is not to say that specifically baptist congregations are the Body of Christ (though you will doubtless find some who tink that way), but simply to say that Baptist ecclesiology holds that the local congregation is in itself a whole body of which Christ is the head. Baptist theology (at least the classic stuff) holds that there is no "universal church" only local churches, each oe of which can legitimately claim to be the Body of Christ.

Now you'll find a lot of people in baptist churches who disagree, but you;ll find those who agree, For example DocCas I vbeleive holds to ths view. It is, as I say, the "classic" baptist theological perspective on the issue. Whether it is right or wrong (which you seem to get into a bit) is another question.

"Really, I thought Soul Competency allowed for an individual understanding of baptism. In other words, a Baptist could believe in infant baptism and be well within his/her right as a Baptist."

No. This is why I mentioned that "baptist" is a name given to baptists by non-baptists. It was given to baptist because they did in fact believe in beliver's baptism by immersion. It is a name that others applied as descriptive of the actual beliefs.

And soul competency is not a license to believe whatever you want. It is conditioned by (at least) the authority of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ.