Baptist Identity or Evangelical Anonymity? Part I

     I was saved in 1977.  To the dismay of many of my Founders' brothers, yes I walked the aisle and filled out a card in response to an invitation the Pastor offered at the service's end.  However, I did not think, even at such an elementary stage of belief, the card added anything significant to my salvation experience; nor certainly did I remotely believe I was saved because I signed my name. 

Indeed I have still yet to meet, after thirty-one years a member in a Southern Baptist Church, the phantom person who believes himself saved because he walked the aisle and signed a card.  Perhaps there is such widespread deception out there as we're repeatedly informed.  I've just never encountered it.

Thirty-one years in a Southern Baptist community of belief is not all that long, of course.  Many who read this may, in fact, have been saved, baptized and a member of a like faith and order Church many years beyond that.  Know, though, attending a Southern Baptist Church is not my first rendezvous with faith communities. 

As a little boy, I attended a Nazarene Church, which, by the way, was the first exposure I had to the Gospel.  The Nazarene Church is a delightful group of believing people.  I shall never forget my experiences there as a young renegade whose sole delight was sinning but who observed  "sanctified life" in Jesus Christ to be exemplar.

Though obviously influenced in many ways by the Gospel as a child, it was not until I was grown and married I discovered forgiveness of sin and the new life given in Jesus Christ.  It was at a Southern Baptist Church.  And being saved in a Southern Baptist Church did nothing to squelch my appreciation for the Nazarenes where I first heard of The Nazarene. 

Nor did the fact that I was called to preach the Gospel while member of a Southern Baptist Church.  Nor did the fact that I attended a Southern Baptist school--Boyce Bible School--turn me to preach against the Nazarene Church. 

Later, after finishing university, and going on to higher education in a Southern Baptist seminary, I did not lose my appreciation for Nazarene people. They still are dear to me. 

And, even now, after thirty-one years a believer; a believer embedded in a Southern Baptist Church; a believer with about twenty-four of those thirty-one years in a Southern Baptist pulpit, Sunday after Sunday proclaiming the Gospel that saved me in 1977...Still, I lose not my appreciation for the Nazarene Church. 

I have no doubt whatsoever that the seed of the Gospel that later sprang to life in me and captured me for His Kingdom was partially sown there by Brother O. J. Osbourne, Pastor for many years, of the Vaughn Memorial Nazarene Church in Lawrenceburg, Tennessee.

Through the years as Pastor of a Southern Baptist Church, I have been both advocate and practitioner for cooperating with other evangelical denominations.  I have belonged to local ministerial alliances almost in every place I've served. 

One of my best friends in one field was the local Methodist pastor.  We had some lively exchanges--he a confident Arminian and me a cocky Calvinist. But friends we were.  I preached in his Church and he in mine.  It was the way of the county seat culture.

The bit of testimony I offer above is to simply frame next what I think deeply needs to be said: 

While I have no reservations whatsoever in putting my arm around people of other persuasions than Baptist within the Christian family, without hesitation calling them my brother or my sister in Christ, I'll be darned if I am going to sit back and watch Baptist identity get swallowed up in evangelical anonymity.

There seems to be a strong urge of many Baptists today to lay aside our heritage as Baptists, minimize as much as possible any distinctive we may possess as Baptist and simply blend our Baptist identity into an evangelical pot of ecumenical stew served up without doctrinal distinction to a hungry world.

Granted there are many places this stew may be a good dish to serve.  There are cultural issues upon which we may all agree.  There are social problems we may, arm in arm, address and commit to eradicate. 

Even more, there are evangelistic projects we may all endorse and with which we may fully cooperate--prayerfully and monetarily.  Nonetheless, there is a limit to this cooperation.  Cooperation must end where our bedrock convictions are compromised.

From my perspective, I see absolutely no hope--nor do I presently desire one--that we may plant Churches together with other evangelical groups.  Baptist ecclesiology is much too potent an ingredient to add to any ecumenical stew.  Our understanding of the Church--at least, historically speaking--overwhelms the stew. 

Indeed, all we would do, from other evangelical perspectives, is contaminate the stew due to our overpowering flavor.  That is, we would insist that the Church--were we to plant it together with other evangelicals--would look like a Baptist Church.  Why?  Because, from a Baptist standpoint, a Baptist Church is the closest thing going on in the world today to a New Testament Church. 

I know that may shock my nonBaptist readers--not to mention the evangelical anonymity advocates who are housed in Baptist dwellings, work for Baptist agencies, learn in Baptist schools, all the while bleeding out the Baptist name.  In fact, it may disappoint them.  May I say two things here? 

First, no intention exists to either shock or disappoint and certainly not to offend.  I am only stating what I believe factually is the case and what I believe the historical reality to be. 

Moreover, I am verbally lamenting my own sense that there is unrest in certain quarters of my community of faith that Baptist distinctiveness is either outdated, unneeded or worst still, unscriptural. This grieves me to the deepest core.

Secondly, why it would surprise anyone that Baptists believe their ecclesiology is spot on with the New Testament revelation is itself the surprise of the hour.  Even more surprising, at least to me, is why one from another evangelical group would not possess identical convictions to the Baptist about his/her own denominational ecclesiology. 

If one possesses doubts about his/her faith group, is there no spiritual duty to either inquire, reform or depart?  How one could passively be content with doubts about the Biblical integrity of one's faith community is a condition to which I hope, under God, I never adapt.

Furthermore, if one is frivolous toward the belief system of one's spiritual community, it remains extremely difficult for me to take seriously their objection that I must not be forged in mine.  After all, our evangelical brothers' doubt that their Church possesses the true ethos of New Testament ecclesiology cannot count against Baptists' deeply embedded conviction that their understanding of ecclesiology does.  Their crisis does not cancel our conviction.

I end this first part with the words of the first writing Southern Baptist theologian, J. L. Dagg.  In the first written Baptist ecclesiology in America, Dagg wrote in the final section entitled "Duty of Baptists" these unforgettable words:

Various schemes have been proposed by the wisdom of men for amalgamating the different Christian denominations. All these originate in the erroneous conception that the unity of the universal church must be found in external organization...All these schemes of amalgamation are inconsistent with the Baptist faith.

We seek spiritual unity. We would have every individual to stand on Bible ground, and to take his position there, in the unbiased exercise of his own judgment and conscience. There we strive to take our position; and there, and there only, we invite our brethren of all denominations to meet us...

We love them for Christ's sake; and we expect to unite with them in his praise through eternal ages. We are one with them in spirit, though we cannot conform to their usages in any particular in which they deviate from the Bible... And if they sometimes misunderstand our motives, and misjudge our actions, it is our consolation that our divine Master approves; and that they also will approve, when we shall hereafter meet them in his presence (all emphasis mine).

With that, I am...

Peter

Comments

[jasonk]

I was not shocked by your comment that the SBC is the closest thing to the NT church one can find today. I just thought it was amusing. I would say that all of us, no matter the denomination, has a long way to go to be at the ideal.
When I was a pastor in the Oklahoma panhandle, we had a large percentage of our population who were Mennonite. Someone offered to give our congregation a church building. Of course we had no need for a church building, since we already had one. I thought it would be a good idea to take the building, and start a Mennonite church there. The closest Mennonite congregation was 90 minutes away. We could start it, fund it, staff it, and grow it. Eventually, we would turn it over to them, and let them have it. When I contacted the good people at our state denominational office, they said that there is no way they would use SBC dollars to start a church that was not SBC. Although you would likely applaud such a decision, I was shocked and disappointed that the SBC was more concerned about denomination than we were about the kingdom.
At a large Baptist church in Minnesota, they tithe their membership every year to start new churches. They send them out with three or four hundred members, a pastor and full staff, and a building. Then they let the church choose what denomination they want to be a part of. That is true giving--letting go completely of what you are giving away. And to me, it is an example of true kingdom work.

[Chris]

I guess you might say, there is enough flexibility in liberty to manage our own houses without having to dictate or be dictated to, how to order the interior of the house. Dagg's quote just demonstrates to me that the same issues just keep getting resurection. I too like you have deep appreciation and cooperation outside baptist identity, but I am babptist first and foremost by choice. I look forward to the discussion.

[peter]

Chris,

Thanks, my Brother. It has only been the last two years or so that I sense a hard push to disrobe our Baptist garment.

From my standpoint, I hope under our Lord I never attempt to strip my Brother of his spiritual heritage through pressure to accept mine.

That said, I fully expect the same from my Brother. And, my experience has been, to date, my expectations have been delightedly met.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

jasonK,

I am glad my words offered to you some unexpected humor. Sadly, your grin may have been based on an incorrect reading.

You seem to think I said "the SBC is the closest thing to the NT church one can find today."

No. I did not say such. And had I said it, I would be laughing with you.

Instead I wrote:

"a Baptist Church is the closest thing going...to a New Testament Church"

Big difference. With that, I am...

Peter

P.S. By the way, we have something about which we may agree. Concerning the good people at your denominational office and the decision not to fund a Mennonite congregation, you rightly peg me--"you would likely applaud such a decision". Definitively.

[volfan007]

jasonk,

i, too, with peter and the good folks at the state office, applaud the refusal of money to the mennonite church start. let the mennonite's start their own churches if that's the way they feel it should be done.

as sb's, we dont see thier way as the best way to do church. why would we spend sb money on starting something that we believe to be flawed? something that wasnt the best for people to attend?

david

[jasonk]

Thanks for clearing that up, Peter. I apologize for getting it wrong.

David, what specifically is flawed about the Mennonite church? As I understand it, most SBC churches that I have known of will accept the baptism of a Mennonite as sufficient for membership in an SBC church.

To Peter, Chris, and David, what exactly will we be doing in Heaven, if not living with people from many different backgrounds? I am going to assume that all of our Baptist identity will gladly be stripped away from us at that point. Do you agree? Or is Heaven going to be just another group of Southern Baptist boys getting together for a meeting?

[peter]

jasonk,

I am unsure how much of our various identities will be peeled away in the New Heaven & Earth. I just don't know. I do know that whatever remains--if any--the distinctions would perfectly glorify God and eternally edify His people.

And no: I do not expect Heaven to be a good ole boy network. With that, I am...

Peter

[Jim Champion]

My Definition of Baptist Identity - and please add to or detract where appropriate

Salvation by grace through Faith in Christ alone

Believers Baptism

Once saved always saved

Lords supper (once per quarter :), baptized believers only

1-2 hymns a praise chorus or 10, welcome time, special music 3 point sermon (expositional only please - even if it is expositing one verse for 5 min and then launching into application for the next 20), invitiation (not necessary to have 7 verses of Just as I am any longer - even a praise chorus will work), offering and announcements - but they might be on the plasma in the foyer so perhaps no announcements!

Seriously - what am I missing, I ID myself as a Baptist, like you Peter it is by choice as I did not come from a Baptist background, but I have been a Baptist for 30 some odd years now and now chair our deacon body (much to my chagrin)

I see much to unify us, but worry that the term Baptist Identity is the new club, much as "innerrancy" was the old club that will be used to divide instead

Jim Champion

[wade burleson]

Jim Champion,

I can assure you that IF some are attempting to use Baptist Identity as a club in the SBC, in a similar manner to which inerrancy was used as a club in the 1980's, those who wield it will discover it swings like a twig.

[David Rogers]

Peter,

Actually, I have no problem with Dagg's quote here, properly understood. I am opposed to organizational connectionalism, and conciliar ecumenism also.

I rather like the following quote by Spurgeon as well:

"for I say of the Baptist name, let it perish, but let Christ's name last for ever. I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living. I hope they will soon be gone. You will say, Why? Because when everybody else sees baptism by immersion, we shall be immersed into all sects, and our sect will be gone. Once give us the predominance, and we are not a sect any longer. A man may be a Churchman, or a Wesleyan, or an Independent, and yet be a Baptist. So that I say, I hope the Baptist name will soon perish; but let Christ's name last for ever."

[Steve Grose]

Peter, I enjoyed your thoughts. For some time I had as an auditor of my congegation the lecturer in theology of the nazarene seminary in Mt. Hagen. We enjoyed great fellowship together. He appreciated our distinctives, I appreciated his. He endured much that he would disagree with, but we developed a great friendship. We even chatted about me switching denoms! He said "no.. better not you'd be making the Nazarene's reformed". He was scared I would infect them with Baptist theology. He appreciated the distinctives. In fact he said, the problem for the growth of the Nazarene's in Australia is that the Baptists are so Wesleyan that they have pinched all the Nazarene distictives (including the insecurity of the believer, second blessing theology and movements towards Nazarene ecclesiology)!
I am glad he could recognise that the distinctives alow us to work independantly for the glory of God.
I informally advised him of unsuccessful Baptist church planting work in a district, and assisted him with advice as to how to make Nazarene church planting work happen there. Once a church plant folds here it takes some years to restart once the bad feelings are all gone, the Baptist work has been more successful the third time round.
Are the two churches in competition? Only to win the lost!
And that is a good competition to be involved in.
Steve

Brother David, I agree with your Spurgeonic quote.(May 27, 1855). let everyone become Baptists then there is no hassle.

Steve

[peter]

Jim,

I do not belong to any club of which I am aware, if by club you mean "closed group".

On the other hand, however, if you mean "club" as in a "hammer" as Burleson seems to think, neither do I swing that club. I shared my heart about the dismal disrobing of what it means to be Baptist, that's all...

Mr. Burleson,

To date, Southern Baptists, as a whole, are still very strongly welded to their love for distinction in the evangelical world. How long that remains is hard to tell.

Know, however, there are some committed to opposing ideas out of Enid which, in their view, mock Baptist identity and urge division among Southern Baptists. Weariness has not yet set in.

With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Grosey,

Always a pleasure to hear from down-under. Your experience demonstrates that real cooperation can take place which is not necessarily exhaustive cooperation.

David,

I'm not sure what you mean by Dagg's quote being "properly understood". In my view, he was forthright in his essay.

I will note, however, that I suppose I have no inherent problem with Spurgeon's quote, assuming it's properly understood. Could you give me the reference so I can see if I understand?

For kicks, let's take him literally, David, if you don't mind. Let's dump the Baptist name, beginning with the IMB of the Southern Evangelical Convention. No more Baptist anything.

That means we have no more Baptist missionaries we support. That will save bunches of money--not to mention appointing just plain vanilla evangelical missionaries trained in our nonBaptist seminaries. Why oh why did we not think of that before now!

Let's set up a statement of who can be a part of our Southern Evangelical Convention:

--Orthodox belief in God

--Deity/Humanness of Jesus

--Justification by faith alone

--Judgment for all unbelievers

That should just about do it. Now we can plant real New Testament Churches with a focus on the larger things of the Kingdom. None of those doggone tertiary tests of belief to clog things up anymore.

With that, I am...

Peter

[Byroniac]

Peter:

I do not really "get" Baptist ecclesiology. I have to confess that, because I am only marginally a Baptist at times (and I do not intend that negatively towards my Baptist brothers and sisters in any way). My denominational affiliation has been Baptist for the last several years, but my defining characteristic as a believer should be that I belong to Christ.

I readily agree with Wade Burleson's comment, that if Baptist Identity is ever used as a club in the SBC, it will prove brittle and easily broken, like a twig. At least I would hope. We need voices like Wade Burleson in the SBC.

And to me it is a shame that money and denominational loyalty wield so much power as controlling factors when the ultimate consideration should be our identities in Christ. I believe many good works, like sponsoring the Mennonite church that jasonk mentioned, will be cut short or even cut off in the name of religion, and not truly in the name of Christ. I believe a good example of this happened with the Acts 29 network in Missouri. Though I believe these people were sincere, I also believe they have no idea how shortsighted some of their beliefs will prove to be, especially from the viewpoint of eternity. However, I'm not offering that as a fellow Baptist, but simply as a believer. And though I know there will be strong disagreement to it, I offer it constructively. Pray for me and others who agree with me if you think we're wrong. I could be, but it's certainly not because I want to see God's blessing lifted away from Baptists in general, or the SBC in particular.

I have some questions I need to ask.

Why is ecclesiology emphasized so heavily, when very little is actually said about it in the New Testament texts, and much more is said about living in purity and holiness in obedience to Christ and the Word?

Are all Baptist distinctives non-negotiable? To be honest, I'm not even sure what they all are. Is church membership on paper essential (church disciple is vital, though)? What about someone who believes tithing was strictly Jewish and for the OT before the start of the church? What about worship styles? Or forms of church government? It bothers me that there seems to be a gradual narrowing of the parameters for fellowship in the SBC world (though I have no idea for the rest of the Baptist world).

Again, please understand and read my comments considering that I am basically non-Baptist at this point in my spiritual walk. I see things much differently than my Baptist brothers and sisters, though I love them no less. But many of my questions are basically posed as an outsider looking in.

[Byroniac]

I meant to indicate that I believe the SBC of Missouri is being shortsighted in their beliefs, not the Acts 29 Network. Again, that is just my opinion! God bless.

[David Rogers]

Peter,

Yes, Dagg is forthright in his essay. He talks about not being expected to compromise on doctrine, and not formally joining together in one big organization ("amalgation") with other denominations. With this, I am in agreement.

The Spurgeon quote may be found here: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0027.htm.

As I understand him, his emphasis is not on "Baptist identity" per se, but rather on biblical doctrine, which so happens to be what we would call "Baptist doctrine." I believe Spurgeon's own example of interdenominational cooperation with other conservative evangelicals helps to "properly understand" his quote here.

Check out, for example, here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NXG/is_3_34/ai_94161024

Oh, by the way, perhaps a good clue to "properly understanding" my comments is that I am really not all that far from you, the main differences being mostly in nuance and tone.

[David Rogers]

Let's see. Maybe TypeKey allows HTML links:

Article on Spurgeon's view of ecclesiology

[Byroniac]

That's an excellent article. Surprisingly, I can agree with the vast majority of Spurgeon's beliefs as expressed here. I have long considered Spurgeon one of the finest Baptists ever born.

[Byroniac]

Peter:

You said, "Indeed I have still yet to meet, after thirty-one years a member in a Southern Baptist Church, the phantom person who believes himself saved because he walked the aisle and signed a card. Perhaps there is such widespread deception out there as we're repeatedly informed. I've just never encountered it."

Peter, I'll take your word for it. I've never heard anyone who did so say anything other than that Jesus saved them. And indeed, I say the same, though my experience was not in a church of any kind, but outdoors at a Christian youth camp which was probably Baptist to the best of my memory. I remember a very gentle invitation to trust Christ which for some reason stirred my heart. And I was led in the sinner's prayer, which I now believe is not necessary for salvation, but also that every true conversion is accompanied by fervent, heart-felt prayer. I was not a product of the invitational system, and to be honest, I do not remember joining a church, or attending three times a week. So I'm not an insider here either.

But I want to ask a very pertinent question. When I became a Baptist (later in life), I was taught (unofficially for the most part) and I believed, that Jesus was absolutely powerless to do anything as long as you sat there unresponsive to the invitation, in your pew. Sure, it was not walking the aisle and signing the card that saved you---Christ of course does that---but only saved in one place in the church, and that was up in front wherever the preacher gave the invitation. And then salvation happened only after prayer, to show you were serious. So I ask now, can people be saved who do not come forward in the invitation, sign the card, and join the church, but simply pray in repentance and faith to Christ wherever they are sitting? I would have said no, and it would have bothered me to even suggest such a thing, though ironically I never tried to harmonize that with my own conversion experience. Maybe I'm unique, but I don't think so.

[Steve]

mmm Byron, a year or so after my conversion I wrote out a covenant of commitment between my self and the Lord. I had been reading in genesis 12 and 15 and 17.. and i read about Abraham's commitment. I decided to sign the page!
I guess you could say I signed the card.. I wrote it out for myself as my covenant to God. And signed it. And made that my conversion statement. Oh noo! I hear some say.. how Arminian!!!
But then again.. I later found that such a covenant was a normal thing among the Puritans.

Mine was similar to this one:

I take God the Father to be my God;
I take God the Son to be my Savior;
I take the Holy Ghost to be my Sanctifier;
I take the Word of God to be my rule;
I take the people of God to be my people;
And I do hereby dedicate and yield my whole self to the Lord;
And I do this deliberately, freely, and for ever. Amen.

(Act of commitment taught to Matthew Henry by his father.)

Steve

[peter]

David,

Thank you for the link. Thank you also for clearing up contextually what Spurgeon meant. I'll give it a peek.

I confess, my Brother, I am not quite getting the "Oh, by the way, perhaps a good clue to "properly understanding" my comments". I did not know I expressed misunderstanding--until now that is.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[peter]

Byron,

Ecclesiology may be the most unique contribution Baptists have made to the historic Church. Were I you, I'd pick up a good Baptist history and just read away--that is, assuming you'd like to know...

Also, Byron, I do not accept the juxtaposition of being defined by "Baptist" and being defined by "Christ". The way you seem to set it up, those of us who argue for a clear Baptist presence are sacrificing their Christian experience of being more dedicated to the name of Baptist than the name of Christ. For me, that's pure nonsense.

And, no, I do not think walking an aisle saves anybody; nor do I think one can point out a Baptist leader who does--unless, of course, one points to an obvious exception.

I do not think it is too much to say I was saved the precise moment I moved from the pew where I stood. All else was the fruit of such a saving moment.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[David Rogers]

Peter,

What I was trying to communicate is that, although we may differ in this or that, when we really get down to it, we are not all that different. I understand that, for arguments sake, and to keep things interesting, it sometimes helps to stir things up a bit. The blogosphere kind of lends itself to that. I guess it would be a bit boring if we wrote mostly about the 98% of things on which we agree. But, then again, I think that might be a bit more balanced and objective. And, it might help to build up the Body of Christ.

[Jim Champion]

Peter

straight up question.

Can you list for me the distinctives of Baptist Identity.

Thanks

Jim

[r. grannemann]

The error of the Catholic Church was thinking that man in his finiteness could infallibly articulate spiritual truth. The Protestant indictment of this theory notwithstanding, every Protestant denomination tends to think the same thing. If one thinks back through their spiritual journey they will likely find a vast progression of thought, and we all tend to believe the things we presently hold are 99% correct. But that is hogwash. So the real question is not so much "Who is right?" but "What do I insist you believe to fellowship together in the SBC?" If the discussion to follow keeps this perspective, it might be most useful.

[Byroniac]

Peter:

I will have to study Baptist ecclesiology. Don't give up on me yet. Though I might be "outside the camp" in some ways, I agree with a lot of Baptist belief. To me the Baptists are the closest to the truth, but whether I wear the label or not should be secondary to whether I obey Scripture or not.

You call my words above a juxtaposition. But I have to ask, what came first? Baptists or Christ? Some claim the first churches were essentially Baptist churches. That's fine if it can be defended (where I need to do some serious reading on Baptist ecclesiology and history). However, Christ and His Jewish followers was where it all began, many years before the Holy Spirit and the Apostle Paul brought Gentiles in.

You said, "I do not think it is too much to say I was saved the precise moment I moved from the pew where I stood. All else was the fruit of such a saving moment."

But see, that is the point exactly. I do not want to get into a Calvinist/Non-Calvinist debate, as that is not my intent, but this is where the heart of the matter gets down to. You just said you were saved precisely when you moved from the pew, and not one moment before. Did your salvation depend on your action? Ultimately, does it depend on you? Most importantly, would you have been saved had you just sat there and not responded to the invitation, but prayed in repentance and faith instead? I believe you would, and I hope you do too.

[Bill]

I also would like to see the list of Baptist distinctives.

Credobaptism
Congregational Polity
Local church autonomy

What else is there?

[selahV]

Hello David, You wrote so wisely: "I guess it would be a bit boring if we wrote mostly about the 98% of things on which we agree. But, then again, I think that might be a bit more balanced and objective. And, it might help to build up the Body of Christ."
I think I'd rather be bored than entertained. I think what truly intrigues me is when we can look at things on which we may not agree and discuss them with the Spirit of Christ till we all understand one another. And then it is expedient that we continue in fellowship as would honor our Lord with our words, being ever mindful to manifest the fruit of the Spirit within us, don't you think? selahV

[selahV]

Peter, I too recall the precise moment I walked out of the pew and down the aisle to make public what Jesus was doing in my heart. I truly believe that while I did not know at the time that unless I confessed with my mouth and publicly acknowledged my confession and trust in my Savior was scriptural, I am grateful the Southern Baptist Church in Connecticut provided the environment for me to follow Jesus immediately in the way I consider most scriptually visible for others to witness. And from that moment on I had the encouragement of fellow believers who took seriously my commitment and nurtured, fed and discipled me. What a blessed person I am for their identity in Christ as Baptists. selahV

[Scott Shaffer]

Baptist Distinctives (using BAPTIST as a mnemonic device)

Bible is authoritative
Autonomy of the local church
Priesthood of the believer
Two Ordinances - believer's baptism, Lords supper.
Individual soul liberty
Saved church membership
Two offices - pastor/elder and deacon
Separation of church and state

[Bill]

I like the mnemonic. I do suggest that Baptists aren't very faithful to the two S words.

[camelrider]

Ok, so at first I actually thought the original post was an attempt at humor....I now realize it was written with true sincerity.
" I'll be darned if I am going to sit back and watch Baptist identity get swallowed up in evangelical anonymity."
Where does this come from? Where did Baptist identity come from? I'm a SB but I don't consider it to be my identity. I'm a follower of Christ, a disciple, a missional believer....my beliefs line up with the SBC but thats as far as it goes. I don't understand how it's important....the beliefs are whats important....not the name.

"a Baptist Church is the closest thing going on in the world today to a New Testament Church."
The NT church met in homes, drank wine, had no full-time paid staff, were intensely persecuted, spoke in tongues, healed people, sold all they had to meet each others needs. What part of this looks like the average Baptist Church? We no longer go out to the highways and biways, we build campuses and ask them to come, we're known more by what we're against than what we're for, we promote superstars that dictate policy and beliefs to "autonomous" churches. I do agree that our theology is very strong...but only Jesus is perfect and we're no where near it. I can promise you each of us, including the churches we pastor, are going to be wrong about alot.
Blessings!

[Jim Champion]

I would whole heartedly agree with those Baptist distinctives - so what is the argument about? Of course I know that priesthood of the believer was changed in the most recent BFM, but apart from that I would imagine that the reformers and the party of Peter :) would all agree with that list.

Am I missing something???

Jim

[Bill]

Jim: I expect Peter will weigh in here, but if I had to guess, I would say that the majority of the baptist identity camp would add:

1. Alcohol abstinence
2. Cessationism
3. Complementarianism
4. Unitary pastoral leadership.

[peter]

Brother Jim,

Perhaps a short list for Baptist distinctives looks very much like the following:

-Orthodox, which simply distinguishes Baptists from cults and other world religion. We are trinitarians...

-Evangelical, not in its original, Lutheran meaning. Rather, Baptists focus on the gospel...

-Separatist, which historically deals with the strict separation of church and state.

Hope that helps, Jim to demonstrate Baptist distinctiveness from other protestants.

Grace. With that, I am...

Peter

[Timotheos]

"a Baptist Church is the closest thing going on in the world today to a New Testament Church."

Astounding, yet strangely unabashed...Ah'm durn near unspeeched. Git on wid yo ole bad, baptist self, Peter.

Camelrider: "...dude!?!"

Peace.

[peter]

Camelrider,

Glad you logged on. I liked your comment. And agreed with much of it. Yet, you forget a few. I'll fill in the blanks. The early church also:

-drew straws to see who'd take Judas' place

-worshiped in the Jewish Temple

-dabbled in a bit of communism

-stared people down till they dropped dead-literally!

-flew around in the air via the Spirit

-allowed their shadows to touch people to heal them

-followed angels out of prison

-bit by deadly vipers but never died (heck, they didn't even swell up!)

-shaved their heads because of a religious vow

--had group hugs complete with sloppy kisses between the men

--committed incest (son and mom)

--baptized each other for relatives already dead

--firmly believed the resurrection was already gone and they missed it

I guess I could go on, but between your list and mine, I think the point is made. What do you think?

Grace, camelrider. With that, I am...

Peter

[Bill]

Peter: I don't disagree with your list as applying to Baptists, but I wouldn't call them distinctives. Those three could easily apply to Presbyterians, Nazarenes, Wesleyans, many flavors of Charismatic / Pentecostal and a host of other protestant denoms.

I seriously doubt the baptist identity folks would be satisfied with that list.

[Benji Ramsaur]

Peter said "short list" boys and girls...

[Benji Ramsaur]

:)

[Bill]

Benji: It is short. It's just not distinct.

[volfan007]

camel,

if you will notice, peter said that the sbc is the best thing going right now...the closest to the bible that we have now. i agree with peter. i believe that the sbc is the closest thing out there to the nt church that's out there. if i believed differently, then i would go and join that other denomination or church where they did stick closer to the nt than we do.

baptist identity folks would say that we need to stay with the bible in areas like:

no ecstatic jibberish tongue speaking in leadership positions...

no women pastors or deacons...

no alcohol drinking for pleasure...

start churches that hold to sound doctrine...

baptism is to be by immersion of a believer by a local church with sound doctrine...

people who are gonna be in leadership positions in the sbc should believe that the bible is inerrant...

these statements are some that i would add to what peter and some others have stated above.

david

[camelrider]

David,
You wrote "baptism is to be by immersion of a believer by a local church with sound doctrine..."
Does this mean a person with Baptist beliefs? So if someone is baptized by a person with beliefs we don't agree on 100% they need to be rebaptized by a baptist?

"no alcohol drinking for pleasure..." Does this mean we can drink if it's work? :-)
Camel Rider

[Bill]

David: Do you think the next BFM should include the issues you listed above?

[volfan007]

camel,

baptism should be done by a church that believes in salvation by grace thru faith, and that it is an everlasting salvation. that baptism is just a symbol of what's already happened in the heart. right? camel, would you accept the baptism of a person who was sprinkled? or, who was baptised for the washing away of thier sins? who was baptised by...say...the mormons who immerse...or by someone's mother in their backyard swimming pool? please tell me what is a scriptural baptism, in your opinion. what should we accept and not accept as a true, scriptural baptism?

also, if you have alcohol in your medicine, or have to use it for anesthesia for digging out a bullet, or something like that... then use it. but, just to drink to get high, or drunk....naaaaa the bible teaches that it's foolish to drink intoxicating wine just for pleasure, and it's a sin to get high on it.

bill, i really dont see any need for these statement of beliefs of baptist distinctives to be put into the bfm2k, although some of them already are. if some local church wants to do some of these things and be a part of the sbc, then that's there prerogative as a local body of believers. but, they should also expect to not hold leadership positions in the sbc, and for their missionaries to not be supported with cp dollars.

also, bill, of course, i would really have no problem with these statements of belief being in the bfm2k, although i dont feel that it's necessary. the bfm2k is a minimal statement. :)

david

[Bill]

So while our church affirms the BFM2K, none of our members should be allowed in leadership positions within the SBC, and any missionary candidates should be rejected, because we have female deacons? Even though that is not restricted by the BFM, or any IMB policies that I know of?

[camelrider]

David,
I agree with you about the baptism thing....my problem with it is the IMB policy of people needing to be baptized in a baptist church. This isn't scriptural.

As far as alcohol, I agree, I've never had a drink in my life. But the Bible also says that our bodies are the temple of God and that gluttony is a sin. So...next time your at the SB convention look around at the waist lines of leadership....if we're going to boycott and stand against things, why only alcohol? Why not boycott Ryan's and pot lucks? People over eat to escape just like drinking....what about coffee? It's also a drug and gives us a high. Where does this stop? We start to act more like Buddhist, denying ourselves of any worldly pleasure.

The Bible speaks clearly against drunkenness.....but where does it say you can't have glass of wine with dinner.....you would say you can't, but you can have a Mt.Dew or cup of coffee, which also give a buzz. Aren't we becoming like the Pharisees?

[Benji Ramsaur]

Bill,

I was thinking along the lines that Peter had a list that was "longer" than his short list, but chose to give the short one instead.

However, Volfann to the rescue!

:)

[John Mann]

Peter,

Thank you for that testimony. Mine is similar. I was raised Church of Christ. I well remember the blessed morning I received Christ, and immediately was rushed into the baptistry, in case the Lord returned, or I had a personal and untimely eschatalogical experience.

At the age of 19 I was introduced to a Baptist church for the first time, and was told I had to be rebaptized. Somewhat stunned, I was forced to study the Scripture on my own and find out what it had to say about Biblical baptism. I submitted to that which I learned, was truly baptized for the first time, and have not had one moment of regret. The difference? The first time was "to get saved" the second time was "because I had been saved." Those distinctions are pretty important.

Peter, my brother, let us stand together for that which so many sacrificed their life... an identity that was based, not on cultural acceptance, but Biblical fidelity. If that is called "Baptist Identity" then so be it.

[peter]

Brother John,

Thank you for the testimony. I think it is important, even in the face of much criticism which continues to insist that the dinosaur of retaining our particular theological distinctives is now finally extinct. "Distinct for whom?" must be a question to take seriously.

Grace as we stand. With that, I am...

Peter