What Does it take to be a "Baptist"?

[Clint Kritzer]

The crux of your statement, DHK, is that you are talking about faith. We can not, no matter how we try, make someone believe a certain way. This goes back to the concept of Soul Liberty, a Baptist distinctive that you claim to hold. The fact of the matter is, the name of our denomination goes back 4 centuries. The term "Fundamentalist" derives from a 1909 publication "The Fundamentals: A testimony to the truth" which promoted 5 beliefs (adopted from the 1895 Niagra Bible conference) for those opposed to the Modernist movement.

Five Points of Fundamentalism Formulated by the 1895 Niagra Bible Conference as necessary standards of belief:

1. Inerrancy of Scripture
2. Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ
3. Substitutionary theory of the atonement
4. Physical resurrection of Christ
5. Christ's imminent bodily return to earth

Fundamentalists and Fundamentalism

This movement was fueled by events through the 20th century such as the Scope's trial, modern cosmology, the emergence of the teaching of evolution, etc.

If we were having this conversation in the 1960's, the term you apply to yourself would indicate that you are a Catholic opposed to Vatican II!

Now before I go any further on this, let me say that my own personal theology adheres to those 5 points of fundamentalism but I do not label myself a "fundamentalist" because of the other modern connotations associated with the word.

As you may be able to tell, this entire conversation is something in which I find great interest. For the sake of argument (perhaps a VERY poor choice of words, time will tell), I will tell you some of the modernist's arguments against your own 2 personal interpretation of Baptist/Biblical/Christian faith, and the reader himself must decide whether the issues are that critical and only the Son can decide if they are necessary for salvation.

Anyone that would deny a fundamental doctrine like the virgin birth ...

There are those who support this view because the Apostle Paul never once mentions this fact despite his MAJOR focus on the physical ressurection. The issue then turns to the origins of the Gospels and the time of their writing relative to Paul's ministry.

The question that must be raised from this view is: Is a belief in the Virgin Birth necessary for salvation? I don't believe we are qualified to say so.

... or the inspiration of the Scriptures ...

I believe you are referring to Divine Inspiration when you say this. This is a very subjective analysis. To me it is a focus on the non-essentials. For example, the Book of Jonah often falls under hard scrutiny from Innerrantist vs. Modernist. Though we know Jonah was a true historical figure, the story of his mission to Ninevah is viewed by some as an Old Testament parable.

My opinion: In either case, the story is canonized in the Scriptures for the same reason: it is the great Old Testament missions story.

To attain salvation, must one believe that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a fish?

Another example is the 6 day creation story. The argument is raised time and again what is a day to God? Yet we see people beat each other over the head ceaselessly over this issue.

My opinion: Does it REALLY matter? Shouldn't the focus be on this day, this time, this place? Is a belief in a literal six 24 hour period creation necessary for salvation?

So you see, the issue is raised of at what point must one believe in the accuracy of the Scriptures to be called a Christian. Copernicus was killed for his belief in the heliocentric model of our solar system. He did not believe that Joshua made the "sun stand still." There are extremist in our sects that would still kill this man for his belief. Was it really necessary to believe in the geocentric theory in Copernicus' time to attain salvation? Is it still?

Christian faith is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It is comprised of personal beliefs for which we will all be held accountable at the time of Judgment.

Hmmm, after previewing my submission I expect this post will get the rocks and mud flying. Again, I will emphasize that my own beliefs are congruent with your's, DHK. I merely wish to add a little perspective to the conversation.

 

[Eladar]

Clint,

Are you saying that the instructions to admonish one another is meaningless, outside of your local congregation?

 

[Clint Kritzer]

I am saying that when we rebuke with all authority (Titus 2:15) it should be done with patience and instruction (2Timothy 4:2) so that our ministry will not be discredited (2Corinthian 6:3).

We are to show respect for everyone (1Peter 2:17) and not look down on those who disagree with us (Romans 14:10).

2Timothy 2:23 is also quite applicable.

[ October 04, 2002, 09:26 AM: Message edited by: Clint Kritzer ]

 

[Eladar]

Everything we do must be in a loving spirit, but this does not mean that we are not to admonish.

See 1 Corinthians 5.

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
I believe we are safe in saying that Trinitarian doctrine runs common through the Baptist faith. At least I have never heard of a Unitarian Baptist sect.

Unitarianism is outside historic Baptist belief. This is not to say there have never been any Baptists who were Unitarian, but to say that if they were they were not considered orthodox. I am familiar with some cases of tending to Unitarianism or other unorthodox ideas on the Trinity. But, in the cases with which I am familiar, these persons or churches did not remain Baptist. All the Baptist confessions with which I am familiar espouse Trinitarian theology. Some people perhaps are confused when we use the term Baptist Distinctives. That term is not intended to encompass all things that Baptist believe, but to show where Baptist beliefs are distinct from other "orthodox" Christians.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />... or the inspiration of the Scriptures ...

I believe you are referring to Divine Inspiration when you say this. This is a very subjective analysis. To me it is a focus on the non-essentials. For example, the Book of Jonah often falls under hard scrutiny from Innerrantist vs. Modernist. Though we know Jonah was a true historical figure, the story of his mission to Ninevah is viewed by some as an Old Testament parable.

My opinion: In either case, the story is canonized in the Scriptures for the same reason: it is the great Old Testament missions story.</font>[/QUOTE]"Inspiration is that extraordinary supernatural influence exerted by the Holy Ghost on the writers of Our Sacred Books, in which their words were rendered also the words of God, and therefore, perfectly infallible." (Benjamin Warfield, Inspiration and Authority, p. 420)

The doctrine of inspiration is not subjective at all. People's interpretation of the Bible may be subjective. But inspiration is simply the fact that God has given us an accurate God-breathed revelation. It was transmitted from the hand of God by the hand of some men for all men. It is my personal opinion that we have the inspired Word of God preserved for us in the Received text of the New Testament and the Masoretic text of the Old Testament. Beyond that you can argue/discuss what the text means. But we have an accurate reading of the text.
The liberal will not believe verbal and plenary inspiration: that it is applicable to both every word and every part of the Bible as a whole. It is for those reasons I don't really consider a liberal "baptist" as baptist.
DHK

 

[Rev. G]

The doctrine of inspiration is not subjective at all. People's interpretation of the Bible may be subjective. But inspiration is simply the fact that God has given us an accurate God-breathed revelation.

How do we know which interpretation is correct since interpretation may be subjective?

Rev. G

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Again, DHK, I agree with your theology and belief in the Scriptures, but this requires faith on our parts. Faith is believing in the unprovable. Faith stems from the direction of the Holy Spirit.

How can we say that God has not convicted a man to faith because he does not view the Bible the same way that we do? Where would this be in the Scriptures, our sole authority? 1Corinthians 15:1-2 only refers to the "Gospel" that Paul taught being necessary for salvation. That "Gospel" as I interpret the meaning, is the teachings of and belief in the resurrected Christ.

Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

All we have to prove that the Bible is inerrant is the Bible itself. A believer can still hold to the "authority" of the Scriptures without holding to inerrancy. We do not worship the "word" of God (Ephesians 6:17). We worship the "Word of God" (John 1:1). The Resurrected Christ is the center of our faith (1Corinthians 15:17). The Bible is the instruction manual. A position of errancy does not necessarily negate the position of the singleness and the sufficiency of the Bible as the guide to salvation and the governing of a church, the Baptist distinctive. If we say that this view or that belief does not make one a Christian, we have put ourselves in the Judgment seat that Christ has reserved for Himself (John 5:21-23).

Tuor stated: Everything we do must be in a loving spirit, but this does not mean that we are not to admonish.

See 1 Corinthians 5.

Again, that particular instance is a directive towards a congregation to come to a mutual decision to excommunicate a sexually immoral member.

Rebuke should be done with instruction and patience. When we speak the truth in love we must bear in mind what love is and what love isn't.

1 Corinthians 13

4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant
5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;
6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.
7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

This is the element of rebuke that is too often missing, IMO.

One further note: I apologize for the delays in my responses. I have had a rather busy day and though I check the forum regularly, I do not always have the time to look up my references.

 

[Eladar]

Again, that particular instance is a directive towards a congregation to come to a mutual decision to excommunicate a sexually immoral member.

The directive was how to deal with a brother living in rebellion to God's commands. No where in the scripture does it say, "only in your congregation". In the scripture it says

"But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. "

Why is it important to make judgements when it comes to those we call brothers? There are two reasons.

1. The brother himself. We surrender him unto Satan so that the sinful nature might be destroyed and the brother comes to his senses and repents before it is too late

2. The preservation of the Church itself. A little yeast will work its way through the loaf.

It is evident by the state of the Church today that indeed satan's leavening is hard at work. Anyone who claims to be a Christian, but does not follow God's commands is a liar and the truth is not in him. There is more to claiming Jesus as Lord, than just an intellectual or verbal claim. Our hearts and minds must be accord with God's teachings.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
Again, DHK, I agree with your theology and belief in the Scriptures, but this requires faith on our parts. Faith is believing in the unprovable. Faith stems from the direction of the Holy Spirit.

How can we say that God has not convicted a man to faith because he does not view the Bible the same way that we do? Where would this be in the Scriptures, our sole authority? 1Corinthians 15:1-2 only refers to the "Gospel" that Paul taught being necessary for salvation. That "Gospel" as I interpret the meaning, is the teachings of and belief in the resurrected Christ.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Acts 8
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

All we have to prove that the Bible is inerrant is the Bible itself. A believer can still hold to the "authority" of the Scriptures without holding to inerrancy. We do not worship the "word" of God (Ephesians 6:17). We worship the "Word of God" (John 1:1). The Resurrected Christ is the center of our faith (1Corinthians 15:17). The Bible is the instruction manual. A position of errancy does not necessarily negate the position of the singleness and the sufficiency of the Bible as the guide to salvation and the governing of a church, the Baptist distinctive. If we say that this view or that belief does not make one a Christian, we have put ourselves in the Judgment seat that Christ has reserved for Himself (John 5:21-23).
</font>[/QUOTE]I am not talking about the gospel or about being saved, or being a Christian. Inspiration of the Scriptures is one of the fundamentals of the faith. Innate in the statement that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, is the fact that we have an inspired Word of God. I am not talking of translations here. How can one hold to the Bible as his final authority if he doesn't believe it??
There are many who are Christians and have a different view of inspiration than you or I. I do not deny that. I am not judging any one's salvation. Inspiration may be a matter of faith, but it is an article of faith at least distinct to the Baptists, if not to some others as well.
DHK

 

[Clint Kritzer]

"But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one."

Nils, the personal pronoun "you" is to the church of God in Corinth as is evidenced in verse 1:2 of this Letter. By your reasoning, it would require an assembly of every single Christian in the world to implement church discipline (verse 5:4 - "When you are assembled...)

I take it you are still having difficulty with the concept of church autonomy?

 

[Clint Kritzer]

DHK said: Inspiration may be a matter of faith, but it is an article of faith at least distinct to the Baptists, if not to some others as well.

Now I think we are making progress. You are asserting what Baptist SHOULD be in your opinion. Nonetheless, there are Baptists who do not hold to this view. The distinctives state what we ARE, not what we should be. Again, I would need to see Scripture that says that a believer must hold to a view of inerrancy for this to be a true distinctive since all of the distinctives are Biblically based (whether others accept our explanations or not). If it is not a Biblically based tenant of faith, then we are not getting the concept from Scripture, thus we are holding to an authority outside of Scripture. See the Catch-22 here?

Just to make sure that we are using the same terms though, in your definition inerrancy is synonymous to inspiration, correct?

I will look for your response in the morning. It's late here on the east coast.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:

Now I think we are making progress. You are asserting what Baptist SHOULD be in your opinion. Nonetheless, there are Baptists who do not hold to this view. The distinctives state what we ARE, not what we should be. Again, I would need to see Scripture that says that a believer must hold to a view of inerrancy for this to be a true distinctive since all of the distinctives are Biblically based (whether others accept our explanations or not). If it is not a Biblically based tenant of faith, then we are not getting the concept from Scripture, thus we are holding to an authority outside of Scripture. See the Catch-22 here?

Just to make sure that we are using the same terms though, in your definition inerrancy is synonymous to inspiration, correct?

2Tim.3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Pet.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

1Pet.1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

Mat.5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The Bible is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
This we have agreed upon is a Baptist distinctive, one of many which distinguishes Baptists from other groups and denominations. The question now surrounds the "Bible." If the Bible is not inspired, what authority would it have? The above Scriptures teach inspiration, particularly 2Tim.3:16, which teaches that God inspired the Scriptures. The word for inspired is "God-breathed." They are His words. They are alive and powerful, sharper than any two-edged sword" (Heb.4:12). I like to use the word inspired as it is a Biblical word, though it includes the idea of inerrancy. We have an inerrant Word of God. But I would rather steer clear from petty arguments about archaic language, printer's errors, etc. That is not what inerrancy is about, yet some would include the very punctuation to be inerrant. For that reason I prefer "inspiration." It is verbal, referring to the very words of Scripture; and it is plenary, referring to every part of Scripture. It is an accurate transcript of what God has said.
He has promised to preserve His Word. It shall endure forever. It came as holy men of God spoke as they were moved (inspired) by the Holy Spirit. We have an inspired Book. It is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.
DHK

 

[Eladar]

I wrote to you ...

Clint,

Paul isn't saying, I wrote to you, so this only applies to those within your congregation.

Paul did indeed write to them about this problem. It was a direct letter to them. It was not a generic letter sent around to all the different congregations. It was a specific need at that church that he was dealing with in correspondance to that church.

My point still stands. Paul's instructions were not to associate with a 'brother' who is living in rebellion to God.

If I were to write to my sister and tell her that she is to not let her son join a Satanic cult because anyone who does is on the road to destruction. Then a few years later someone got ahold of that letter and read it, would it be a correct conclusion that only parents should say something if someone is going to join a Satanic cult?

The letter I wrote was to my sister. It was in the context of dealing with her son. Yet the truth I wrote was that anyone who joins a quote needs to not do it because it would cause lead to destruction.

In short Clint, your position is unloving. Since the kid is not a member of my immediate family, I'm going to let him walk right out into the middle of the freeway.

The letter was written in a correspondance to a single congregation, but within that correspondance Paul gives us a universal truth.

I gave Paul's 2 reasons for upholding what would be called 'tough love'. One reason is for the individual, and the other for the Church as a whole. In closing your eyes to the leavening outside your congregation, you allow the cancer to spread. As it spreads throughout the Christian culture, it will end up at your door more and more often. This is exactly what Paul warned us about.

 

[rsr]

DHK, I'm confused about "inerrancy?" You don't like the word (because there are many different versions), but you obviously believe in a particular version of it.

But what is "inerrancy?" Or inspiration?

I believe in inspiration. The Bible is the word of God, a perfect treasure trove of divine instruction, the final authority of faith and practice, the revelation that bears witness to Jesus Christ.

Is that not inerrancy?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:

I believe we are safe in saying that Trinatarian doctrine runs common through the Baptist faith. At least I have never heard of a Unitarian Baptist sect.

Yes, I agree but in a way that's just my point. It seems to me that under your definition of "Baptist", if someone DID take that position, and insisted upon CALLING themselves "Baptists", and held to a few token things like water Baptism and Soul liberty, then they would be Baptists.

If that is not acceptable, then how can it be acceptable for those who purposely defend openly living in rebellion against God, by deliberately twisting Scriptures (thereby betraying a contempt for God and His Word), to be acknowledged as Baptists?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by rsr:
But what is "inerrancy?" Or inspiration?

I believe in inspiration. The Bible is the word of God, a perfect treasure trove of divine instruction, the final authority of faith and practice, the revelation that bears witness to Jesus Christ.

Is that not inerrancy?

I agree with you in your statement of inspiration. I only made the statement on inerrancy because there are some that stretch both inerrancy and inspiration to the translation. I believe that the Bible was inspired in the original autographs and it is preserved for us in the received text and in the masoretic text. It does not extent to the translation. That was the only point I was really trying to make about inerrancy.
DHK

 

[Clint Kritzer]

Jim, as Robert said here:

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Some people perhaps are confused when we use the term Baptist Distinctives. That term is not intended to encompass all things that Baptist believe, but to show where Baptist beliefs are distinct from other "orthodox" Christians.

What you call your own interpretation of Scripture OTHERS may call twisting. You are speaking from your own subjective point of view. You are taking a position that anyone who disagrees with you is not Baptist. Part of what crystallized our denomination out from other sects during the Protestant reformation was an escape from such theocratic views. To say "all must view Scripture as I" is the same thing that the Church of England established upon its break from Rome and continued through the time of the Acts of Toleration.

All believers are priest and therefore competent to go to God on their own. (1Peter 2:9). I'll give you some more Scripture and specific histories to chew on on this subject tomorrow.

On that subject, DHK and Tuor, check your PMs. I had written you to let you know that I would not have time today to continue the conversation. I just got home a little while ago and have yet to make it through my forums. I have miles to travel (figuratively ) yet before I sleep, but look forward to continuing our discourse tomorrow.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Clint Kritzer:
...What you call your own interpretation of Scripture OTHERS may call twisting. You are speaking from your own subjective point of view. You are taking a position that anyone who disagrees with you is not Baptist...

Clint,

So, there is no objective truth to be gained from the Bible, it's all a matter of someone's opinion? When the Bible clearly calls something sin and an abomination, It's MY OPINION???

George over there claims that HIS reading of Scripture leads to the "truth" that half of the bible is uninspired. Fred, over in the corner, says that HIS reading of scripture tells him that Christ didn't actually rise from the dead, it was just an inspiring story. Henry, over here, isn't so sure that the Ten Commandments were actually from God, Moses probably made the story up to scare people into his following his intolerant ways.

So, since we're Baptists, we have to consider that each of these guys has a "right" to "believe" that he went directly to God and got his ideas. And so long as they were Baptised (by immersion, of course...that one we're sure of)...we have to call them Baptists, if they so desire.

Nope, don't buy it.

 

[Eladar]

I think this 'acceptance of every view' has the same roots as 'seperation of church and state'.

It is a way to ensure that one will not be persecuted. What we see today is the natural progression of man's answer to self preservation.