What do Baptists believe?

[Brother Adam]

GARB beliefs

[burnsspivey]

[url="http://users.townsqr.com/ccbc/welcome.html"]Here[/url] is the church in which I grew up.

Our Statement of Faith

1. We believe the entire Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, as originally written, to be the verbally inspired and infallible Word of God. We believe that the King James Version is the preserved Word of God in the English language and therefore is the acceptable standard for our Biblical teaching and devotion (II Timothy 3:16-17, Psalm 119:89, II Peter 1:20-21).

2. We believe Jesus Christ was born of Mary the virgin and is the Son of God and God the Son (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:18-25).

3. We believe that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures—the just for the unjust—that He might bring us to God (I Corinthians 15:1-4, I Peter 3:18).

4. We believe that Christ rose from the grave on the third day according to the Scriptures (I Corinthians 15:3-4).

5. We believe that Christ is the only High Priest, and we need not the intercession of any man, for Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us (Hebrews 3:1, 4:14-15, 9:11-12, 9:25, I Timothy 2:5).

6. We believe that Christ will come again in person, bodily and visibly, to establish His kingdom on the earth (John 14:1-6, Acts 1:7-11).

7. We believe that in order to be saved, the soul must be born-again. "Ye must be born again" (John 3:6-16).

8. We believe that every truly born again soul should declare his faith by the act of baptism (immersion in water), setting forth the Lord's death, burial, and resurrection (Acts 2:41, 8:36-38, 16:30-33).

9. We believe that Christ keeps those who are truly born again (II Timothy 1:12, 10:28).

10. We believe that all Christians are called unto a life of separation from worldly and sinful practices and to a life of usefulness for Christ (I Corinthians 6:17, I Peter 1:2-9).

11. We believe that the church is a local body of baptized believers whose only mission is not to "reform the world," but to preach and teach the gospel of salvation to the individual soul (Acts 11:26, 14:27, I Corinthians 1:2, I Timothy 3:15).

12. We believe that at Christ's coming in the air, the bodies of the dead in Christ shall be raised incorruptible and be reunited with soul and spirit. The bodies of Christians who are alive shall be changed and glorified, and without dying, shall be caught up to be with the Lord (I Thessalonians 4:13-17, I Corinthians 15:51-53). The saved will then appear before the Judgment Seat of Christ to be rewarded for their deeds (II Corinthians 5:10, I Corinthians 3:11-15). After these things, Christ will return bodily and visibly to the earth with His saints and shall rule the world in righteousness for a thousand years, at the end of which the unsaved dead will be resurrected, and their judgment and condemnation shall take place (Matthew 4:30-31, Revelation 19:11-16, 20:5-6, 20:11, 20:15).

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

[quote]
5. We believe that Christ is the only High Priest, and we need not the intercession of any man, for Christ ever liveth to make intercession for us (Hebrews 3:1, 4:14-15, 9:11-12, 9:25, I Timothy 2:5).[/quote]


Then why ask others to pray for you?

[Brother Adam]

#5 would fit perfectly if it was restricted to "Jesus alone is the high priest and mediator of a better covenant". If #5 is meant to restrict anyone from participating in the kingdom of God, to refuse us from praying for others or asking others for prayer, then that is heresy.

[Birgitta Noel]

Good point MBA.

BA are you suggesting this is heresy for Catholics or for Baptists? Can Baptists have heresy? I always thought of that as a particularly Catholic thing. Maybe because other faiths seem so mailiable.....

[thessalonian]

[quote name='desertwoman' date='Feb 9 2005, 01:39 PM'] I've never heard of seventh day Baptists before. Seventh Day Adventists yeah, but Baptists I'm new to. I guess they just worship on the seventh day like the Adventists do.

Now, I've been raised and brought up in a Baptist Church. Our creed is to believe that God is in three persons, Father, Son and Spirit.

But the one creed, or doctrinal belief with the Baptists is to be baptized. It is a symbol and a letter to the world that you are dedicating your life to Christ. And to be baptized you must be submerged in water since it symbolizes burial of the old you, and the new you comes forth.

Just an interesting tid bit: Our church use to be a Catholic Church in the late 1700's in Charleston. It became a Baptist church during the 1800's and the new owners never took down the creed.

I use to read it all the time when I was little on the wall. But a little jeopardy knowledge there. [/quote]
Here is a website on Seventh Day Baptists.

[url="http://www.seventhdaybaptist.org/"]http://www.seventhdaybaptist.org/[/url]

There are also seventh day non-denominationals. I don't know that there are 7th day lutherans or anything like that. Probably not. Hey, if you wanted to start making money as a pastor, there's a gig for ya.

There's a flavor of everything out there.

[thessalonian]

This is more appropriate for the presbyterian counterpart of this thread. Here's a quote I found online:

You don't know how many religions there are until you start a competition between them. That brings them out of the woodwork. You may think there's only three or five or seven major religions, but once you start subdividing, it never ends. For instance, I grew up "Presbyterian", and I thought that was one religion; but instead it turns out you've got your Presbyterians, your United Presbyterians, your Presbyterians of America, your Seventh-Day Presbyterians, your I-don't-know-what, and we Presbyterians aren't even particularly prone to schism.

A house divided cannot stand.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Feb 9 2005, 06:35 PM'] Good point MBA.

BA are you suggesting this is heresy for Catholics or for Baptists? Can Baptists have heresy? I always thought of that as a particularly Catholic thing. Maybe because other faiths seem so mailiable..... [/quote]
I'm suggesting if they changed a few things in #5 to what I stated it would be correct. A baptist can teach heresy, though may not be cuplable to it.

[Walking to Emmaus]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Feb 9 2005, 01:08 PM'] Ok, I was thinking we should have threads to elucidate on the basic beliefs of other faiths. Perhaps we can start with the Baptists.

So, what do Baptists believe? [/quote]
Just a bit of an aside, but you have to remember that many Protestant groups do not follow a creed so one church may differ from another. I know that where I'm from one of the largest protestant churches in the state just happens to be a baptist church and they are all about the "rapture" and the second coming of Christ. I know that not all baptists believe in the rapture. It would however be beneficial to explore the basic cornerstones of their faith and other denominations.

Paz en Christo

[Birgitta Noel]

Yes, and I knew that. I don't know why I wasn't thinking of it when I posted that topic though!

Thanks for pointing that out

[Matt Black]

Difficult one. Baptists are not traditionally a credal people although there is a plethora of Baptist Confessions/ Statements of Faith, a couple of which have been quoted here already; in addition there are the London Baptist Confessions of 1644 and 1689. But there are Baptist 'Distinctives' which set Baptists apart from other evangelicals and protestants and which make a (local - see below) church a Baptist church (they're easy to remember because they spell out 'BAPTIST'!):-

Believers' baptism - by full immersion; only those who have made a profession of faith in Christ may be baptised. Only people thus baptised may be church members.

Autonomy of and government by the local congregation - Baptists are not alone in having this form of ecclesiology; Congregationalists and Open Brethren do likewise. The emphasis is on the local church being comprised of baptised members and church decisions being made in conclave by said members at the dreaded Church Meeting(tm). Thus Baptists have a very weak understanding - if at all - of the concept of the Church Universal; only the local congregation can rightly be called 'the church'; other congregations, Baptist or otherwise, are referred to as 'churches'. The congregation in turn appoint or delegate authority to a pastor/minister (which is how Baptists understand [i]episkopos[/i]) who is usually ordained who is often assisted by elders ([i]presbuteroi[/i]) and deacons, who are likewise appointed by Church Meeting. Those are the only offices Baptists recognise

Priesthood of the believer - everyone has the ability to read and interpret the Bible for him or herself ie: 'a Pope in every pew'. This of course is a recipe for theological anarchy although in practice it often, surprisingly, gives rise to a remarkable degree of congruence in thought within a congregation, although whether that is the result of the Holy Spirit or peer pressure is another matter! It is usually, and inevitably, linked to [i]sola Scriptura[/i] and can boil down in practice to 'one man and his Bible' which is of course at least one or two short of a church (Matt 18 and all that) and, again, mitigates against the concept of any kind of universal Body of Christ; further, it exacerbates the typical Protestant tendency to ecclesial fragmentation.

Two ordinances - we don't call them 'sacraments' and any hint of the latter raises suspicions in some Baptist quarters of the Dreaded Popery(!): baptism and the Lord's Supper (which is not representative of Jesus in any way but purely commemorative; we don't even approach consubstantiation let alone the Real Presence!)

Individual soul liberty - closely linked to the 'P' above; everyone is free to come to their own conclusions about doctrine and no-one can impose their doctrinal views on others. See 'P' and its weaknesses above...

Salvation through faith alone. Usual post-Luther stuff there; some Baptists are Calvinist (Particulars) and some Arminian (Generals). No surprises there

Two offices - pastors and deacons. Despite this, in practice as I've said above, many Baptist churches also have elders. But as 'three' begins with a 'T', I guess that doesn't matter!

Any questions?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Birgitta Noel]

Yeah, more of a personal one. Matt, how do you know who's right? What if two disagree over the interpretation of the scripture? And how do you know that people aren't bending the interpretation to fit their own agendas and interests, or to allow their own sins for that matter?

[Matt Black]

Therein lies the rub. The short, stark answer is: we don't, empirically. But, in a sense, isn't this issue of empirical, objectively-known truth part of a wider problem which assails us all: how do you [i]know[/i], for example, that the Catholic Church is right? Ultimately, we have to take truth as a matter of faith, not supreme knowledge. But I agree that the lack of a Magisterium magnifies this problem for Protestants, and the concept of soul liberty plus sola Scriptura amplifies this tendency to theological fragmentation still further for Baptists. Therefore there is far more of an unhealthy tendency to individualistically work out doctrine in Baptist churches - and hence get it wrong. I guess the 'check and balances' built in to Baptist ecclesiology here is (a) the idea of congregational government - and hence congregational accountability: you rarely get an individual coming up with some 'new-fangled interpretation' of Scripture without s/he being gently but firmly rebuked by the others in the congregation and (b) the fact that we do have our own equivalent of Tradition: a Baptist must adhere to the 'distinctives' and, on a broader basis, Baptists are part of the post-Reformation evangelical tradition which emphasises salvation by faith, a high view of Scripture, the need for personal conversion etc, so that to a degree sets certain parameters; Scripture tends to be interpreted within that doctrinal framework.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Edited for carp tryping ]

Edited February 14, 2005 by Matt Black

[Brother Adam]

Matt,

I was over at the BaptistBoard reading some of your posts. Way to go for sticking up for what truth you do see the Church is teaching. In so many ways I see alot of me in you from the point I was at just a couple of years ago. Same old arguments I see are coming from BobRyan and others.

Because I was intellectually honest, I didn't feel a need to rip the Catholic Church up and down on every single word that came from her. I tried to see the good while trying to understand what might be wrong in her teachings.

But being honest is what has brought me on the path to the Church over the past three years. I challange you, if you are not already, to really search out all of the teachings of the Church, exam the case for both sides, and decide, from not only scripture, which the Catholic Church venerates and upholds as the living, infallible, inerrant Word of God; but also from reason. As Kant stripped faith from reason, Protestantism has stripped reason from faith.

The longer I dwelled and meditated on John 17, the more deeply I realized denominationalism was never what Christ intended for His Church.

Again, great job on the BB.

[Matt Black]

Thanks for that! I should have said also that I tend for myself personally to go by the rule of thumb set out by Vincent de Lerins in approaching doctrinal issue including interpretation of Scripture of “that which is believed everywhere, by everyone, at all times” as being helpful to discussions of this nature. Vincent is of course speaking about belief within Christendom and that necessarily begs the ‘drawback’ question of defining Christendom and ‘The Church’ ™. It also has the potential to direct us towards a single teaching authority in ‘The Church’™, and therefore points us in the direction of some kind of Magisterium if you like (I don’t necessarily!), a case of “all roads leading to Rome”.

A more helpful model to evangelicals therefore might be found in the concept of embracing the idea of pluriformity, and here a combination of Pascal and the Russian Mikhail Bakhtin is useful; the former for his dictum, “a plurality that cannot be organised into unity is chaos (denominationalism plus mutual anathematisation of other Christians’ beliefs); a unity without plurality is tyranny (the cults)”; the latter for his asking whether there is any single voice able to pronounce absolute Truth, and for encouraging dialogue accordingly between Christian traditions, placing ‘absolute’ and ‘final’ categories of Truth in their proper eschatological perspective, and accepting that this side of the eschaton we “see but through a glass darkly” per I Cor 13 and stressing the apophatic in theological approach.

The problem with the Pascal-Bakhtin solution is however twofold: on the one hand, it leaves unchanged the plethora of Biblical interpretations based on sola Scriptura (albeit embracing these rather than anathematising all but one interpretation, as many fundamentalists do), and on the other hand it tends towards a plurality of epistemologies and in what sense can this be said to be different from post-modern relativism?

Nevertheless, I believe that a synthesis of both Lerins’ approach and that of Pascal-Bakhtin’s (and please do not think I am straying into dialectic materialistic territory in saying this!) would bear great fruit in endeavouring to settle this interpretative problem.

Yours in Christ


Matt