Baptists...what are they?

Status
Not open for further replies.

rural_preacher

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2004
809
115
57
✟1,555.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Danfrey brought up a point in another thread that seems to be a common misunderstanding. He thought that Baptists are usually associated with Calvinism (other than Free Will Baptists).

I would like to offer a clarification (y'all can take it or leave it). :p ^_^

"Baptist" is not a name that describes or defines any particular Systematic or Dogmatic Theology. The name "Baptist" refers to polity.

An individual cannot be a "Baptist" apart from being a member of a Baptist church. Only local church bodies are "Baptist". That is because the word "Baptist" is descriptive of a historically held set of beliefs concerning the structure, function and authority of the local church (thus...polity).

Many times the word "Baptist" is used as an acrostic to outline those beliefs that are referred to as "Baptist Distinctives".

Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of all believers
Two church ordinances - baptism, Lord's Supper
Individual Soul Liberty
Saved, baptized church membership
Two church officers - Pastor (Elder) and Deacon

Although there are some variations and differences on some of these points among Baptists, these are generally regarded as "Baptist Distinctives". Of course, there are other non-baptist churches that believe in some or all of these as well (thus making me wonder just how distinctive we really are...but that's another subject).

As one can see, what makes a church "Baptist" has nothing to do with Dogmatic Theology (such as: Calvinism, Arminianism, Covenantism, Dispensationalism, etc., etc., etc.). In regard to Systematic/Dogmatic Theology, Baptist churches are full of variety.


-
 

Robinsegg

SuperMod L's
Site Supporter
Mar 1, 2006
14,765
607
Near the Mississippi
✟63,126.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi!
I've attended Baptist churches all my life and been a member of them for more than 20 years. I'll agree with the above description.

There are reasons I don't subscribe to Cavanism, but suffice it to say I don't. On the other hand, there are Baptist churches that practice doctrine I believe to be absolutely wrong. Just because the "Baptist" name is on the door, doesn't automatically mean I'll agree with what they do.

Rachel
 
Upvote 0

rural_preacher

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2004
809
115
57
✟1,555.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Danfrey said:
Thanks for the explanation. I am afraid I have been guilty of lumping all baptists into the pot. I do have one question. What is individual soul liberty?

To state it very concisely:

Every individual has the liberty to choose what he or she believes. No one should be forced to believe against his will; however, this does not exempt one from accountability to God.

Baptists, historically, have been opposed to religious persecution and coercion. We don't force anyone to worship as we do. And we are opposed to others trying to coerce us. Local church autonomy and individual soul liberty go hand-in-hand. You are free to worship with us if you want and you are free to leave. But each local church tends to be comprised of believers who agree (for the most part) and that is why they form a body and worship together.

I hope that gives a reasonable explanation. If not, feel free to ask more specifically and I will try to explain better. :p


-
 
Upvote 0

Danfrey

Warning -- Anabaptist views
Feb 9, 2006
767
32
53
Colorado Springs, CO
✟1,080.00
Faith
Anabaptist
I think I understand what you are saying.

Does it means that you should only do something because you believe it, not because you are afraid of being kicked out of church. If so, I agree completely.

I have seen far too many negative affects of people not understanding why they do something. This happens with our you people because their parents don't teach non-resistance from a biblical perspective. They just teach them non-violence. (kind of like the non-violent resistance of Ghandi) I teach my kids what the Bible says on the matter, it is up to them to make the decision for themselves.

That was a long ramble, but did I get idea of your answer or am I off in never never land?
 
Upvote 0

rural_preacher

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2004
809
115
57
✟1,555.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Danfrey said:
I think I understand what you are saying.

Does it means that you should only do something because you believe it, not because you are afraid of being kicked out of church. If so, I agree completely.

I have seen far too many negative affects of people not understanding why they do something. This happens with our you people because their parents don't teach non-resistance from a biblical perspective. They just teach them non-violence. (kind of like the non-violent resistance of Ghandi) I teach my kids what the Bible says on the matter, it is up to them to make the decision for themselves.

That was a long ramble, but did I get idea of your answer or am I off in never never land?

Yes. I think you got the idea. Soul Liberty was originally an idea that was born out of an opposition to religious persecution, but I think you have touched on another area of it.

I agree that far too many people grow up in a church not really understanding why they believe what they believe, so when they reach their teens or twenties they stop believing because they never really believed in the first place. They were just "following the crowd" so to speak.

We need to be vigilant in teaching our young people (from infancy) why we believe, not just what we believe. Ultimately, it is the work of the Holy Spirit to illuminate the individual to the Truth as they submit themselves to His work. But "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." So, we have a responsibility to proclaim that Word so faith will be possible in their lives.

However, with Individual Soul Liberty in mind, if they choose to walk away we cannot coerce them to come back because we cannot force anyone to believe something they don't believe. All we can do is love them and pray for them and let God do His work in their lives as He sees fit.


-
 
Upvote 0

aReformedPatriot

Ron Paul for President!
Oct 30, 2004
5,460
83
40
Visit site
✟13,811.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
rural_preacher said:
Danfrey brought up a point in another thread that seems to be a common misunderstanding. He thought that Baptists are usually associated with Calvinism (other than Free Will Baptists).

I would like to offer a clarification (y'all can take it or leave it). :p ^_^

"Baptist" is not a name that describes or defines any particular Systematic or Dogmatic Theology. The name "Baptist" refers to polity.

An individual cannot be a "Baptist" apart from being a member of a Baptist church. Only local church bodies are "Baptist". That is because the word "Baptist" is descriptive of a historically held set of beliefs concerning the structure, function and authority of the local church (thus...polity).

Many times the word "Baptist" is used as an acrostic to outline those beliefs that are referred to as "Baptist Distinctives".

Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of all believers
Two church ordinances - baptism, Lord's Supper
Individual Soul Liberty
Saved, baptized church membership
Two church officers - Pastor (Elder) and Deacon

Although there are some variations and differences on some of these points among Baptists, these are generally regarded as "Baptist Distinctives". Of course, there are other non-baptist churches that believe in some or all of these as well (thus making me wonder just how distinctive we really are...but that's another subject).

As one can see, what makes a church "Baptist" has nothing to do with Dogmatic Theology (such as: Calvinism, Arminianism, Covenantism, Dispensationalism, etc., etc., etc.). In regard to Systematic/Dogmatic Theology, Baptist churches are full of variety.


-

I would say that this is correct but I would change the emphasis from church polity to baptism.

The standout feature of the early baptists was the onset/recovery of biblical baptism which is believer's baptism (via sprinkling at first), which made them a group that was distinct from the predominate paedobaptist's. Polity came into the forefront right alongside baptism shortly thereafter and were the defining marks of a baptist church.
 
Upvote 0

TexasSky

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2006
7,265
1,014
Texas
✟12,139.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The OP is very well stated, and please folks, don't put us all in one pot!

I have a friend who almost ended our friendship when they heard I was Baptist. After hearing what the church he had visited that bore the title "Baptist" taught - I couldn't blame him for his reaction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinCrier
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

rural_preacher

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2004
809
115
57
✟1,555.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
The Lord's Envoy said:
I would say that this is correct but I would change the emphasis from church polity to baptism.

The standout feature of the early baptists was the onset/recovery of biblical baptism which is believer's baptism (via sprinkling at first), which made them a group that was distinct from the predominate paedobaptist's. Polity came into the forefront right alongside baptism shortly thereafter and were the defining marks of a baptist church.

Very true. Thanks for pointing that out.


-
 
Upvote 0

Diane_Windsor

Senior Contributor
Jun 29, 2004
10,163
495
✟27,907.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
rural_preacher said:
An individual cannot be a "Baptist" apart from being a member of a Baptist church.

This is where we part ways. Though I'm formally a Methodist and attend a local UMC parish I'll always be a Southern Baptist-it's in my blood. I am as much of a Baptist as I am an American, and I always will be despite what religious beliefs I hold.

DIANE
:wave:
 
Upvote 0

Danfrey

Warning -- Anabaptist views
Feb 9, 2006
767
32
53
Colorado Springs, CO
✟1,080.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Diane_Windsor said:
This is where we part ways. Though I'm formally a Methodist and attend a local UMC parish I'll always be a Southern Baptist-it's in my blood. I am as much of a Baptist as I am an American, and I always will be despite what religious beliefs I hold.

DIANE
:wave:

:doh:Doh!

First it's Once Saved Always Saved, now it's Once Baptist Always Baptist :)

OBAB does have nice ring to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diane_Windsor
Upvote 0

rural_preacher

Well-Known Member
Oct 4, 2004
809
115
57
✟1,555.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Danfrey said:
:doh:Doh!

First it's Once Saved Always Saved, now it's Once Baptist Always Baptist :)

OBAB does have nice ring to it.

LOL!!

Yes. An individual can hold unwaveringly to those beliefs held up as "Baptist" beliefs. In that sense an individual is a Baptist. However, my point was that the name "Baptist" by historical definition refers to a body of believers who are organized in a particular fashion. Therefore, each individual in that body is a "Baptist" only in that they are a part of that Baptist body. The term "Baptist" used in its true sense refers to a local church not an individual.


-
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JPPT1974

School's Out!
Mar 18, 2004
289,041
11,536
49
Small Town, USA
✟570,801.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
CA-Conservatives
rural_preacher said:
LOL!!

Yes. An individual can hold unwaveringly to those beliefs held up as "Baptist" beliefs. In that sense an individual is a Baptist. However, my point was that the name "Baptist" by historical definition refers to a body of believers who are organized in a particular fashion. Therefore, each individual in that body is a "Baptist" only in that they are a part of that Baptist body. The term "Baptist" used in its true sense refers to a local church not an individual.


-

I was born a Baptist
Will die one as well
But I think that denomiations don't really matter
Just as long as your believe in Jesus
As the Christ and most of all
Your personal Lord & Savior
 
  • Like
Reactions: TwinCrier
Upvote 0
D

Dmckay

Guest
rural_preacher said:
Danfrey brought up a point in another thread that seems to be a common misunderstanding. He thought that Baptists are usually associated with Calvinism (other than Free Will Baptists).

I would like to offer a clarification (y'all can take it or leave it). :p ^_^

"Baptist" is not a name that describes or defines any particular Systematic or Dogmatic Theology. The name "Baptist" refers to polity.

An individual cannot be a "Baptist" apart from being a member of a Baptist church. Only local church bodies are "Baptist". That is because the word "Baptist" is descriptive of a historically held set of beliefs concerning the structure, function and authority of the local church (thus...polity).

Many times the word "Baptist" is used as an acrostic to outline those beliefs that are referred to as "Baptist Distinctives".

Biblical Authority
Autonomy of the Local Church
Priesthood of all believers
Two church ordinances - baptism, Lord's Supper
Individual Soul Liberty
Saved, baptized church membership
Two church officers - Pastor (Elder) and Deacon

Although there are some variations and differences on some of these points among Baptists, these are generally regarded as "Baptist Distinctives". Of course, there are other non-baptist churches that believe in some or all of these as well (thus making me wonder just how distinctive we really are...but that's another subject).

As one can see, what makes a church "Baptist" has nothing to do with Dogmatic Theology (such as: Calvinism, Arminianism, Covenantism, Dispensationalism, etc., etc., etc.). In regard to Systematic/Dogmatic Theology, Baptist churches are full of variety.


-
Rural Preacher,
In large part I agree whole-heartedly with your discussion of what a Baptist is. But, part of where Danfrey's confusion may be coming from is because of the roots of most Baptists in the United States.

Modern Baptists in America trace their heritage to the early English Baptists of the Reformation period. These early forerunners were divided into two groups-the General Baptists and the Particular Baptists. The General Baptists were not as Calvinistic, and certainly did not believe in a particular atonement. They believed in a general atonement, that is, that the death of Christ had a general design towards all men. The Particular Baptists believed in a limited atonement.
Second, we find that these Particular Baptists of the seventeenth century were the more influential of the two groups. Their Calvinism was reflected in two confessions of faith, the First London Confession of 1644 and the Second London Confession of 1689.
We find strong and clear statements on election in each of them as follows:
And touching his creature man, God had in Christ before the foundation of the world, according to the good pleasure of his will, foreordained some men to eternal life through Jesus Christ, to the praise and glory of his grace, leaving the rest in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his Justice.
First London Confession, 1644
By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory some men and Angels are predestinated, or fore-ordained to Eternal Life, through Jesus Christ, to the praise of his glorious grace; others being left to act in their sin to their just condemnation, to the praise of his glorious justice. These Angels and Men thus predestinated, and foreordained are particularly, and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain, and definite, that it cannot be either increased, or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated to life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret Counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love; without any other thing in the creature as a condition or cause moving him thereunto.
Second London Confession, 1689
Beyond even English history, we find that Baptists in early America shared the same viewpoint as evidenced in their greatest confession of faith, the Philadelphia Confession of Faith. In fact, this confession was pretty much a reproduction of the Second London Confession, except for a few extra categories. But as far as the subject of divine election, it read exactly the same.
The widespread influence of this Philadelphia Confession was evidenced by a statement found in one very reliable source. That source stated that, “Throughout the South it shaped Baptist thought generally and has perhaps been the most influential of all confessions” (Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists, Volume I, p. 308).
When and Why Did Baptists Lose Their Calvinism?
These two questions are so closely related that if we discover the answer to one we will also uncover the other. But the answer to these two questions is not easy to find.
After pouring over dozens of books on Baptist history, and after giving it much thought and meditation, the answer was uncovered. Even then it can not be stated in a short and simple manner. To state it in summary fashion would be as follows: Baptists lost their Calvinism sometime in the past one hundred years due to the influence of the two great awakenings and the events which accompanied them.
To elaborate, Baptists were strong Calvinists in their early history in America as evidenced in the already mentioned Philadelphia Confession of Faith. This confession would have to be dated in the early part of the eighteenth century, perhaps about 1725.
When the first Great Awakening of 1740 (which by the way was a Calvinistic movement) exploded on the scene of early American history, Baptists were not involved in it. Baptists became involved in it as members of the established churches, who had experienced revival and renewal, left to join Baptist churches. These individuals were known as Separates, and they brought to the Baptist churches the spirit of the awakening, which was good, but they also brought some dangerous tendencies—a distrust of the established clergy, a view of the immediate illumination of the Holy Spirit, etc.
The excesses of this first great awakening were dangerous and damaging to Baptist life in America. Baptists began to move in the direction of a spirit of the anti-theological or non-theological in their attitudes and thinking. They became very pietistic, with strong appeal to the emotions. They came to undervalue ministerial education. They became somewhat anti-education and anti-historical. They began to fear creeds and confessions of faith. Up to this time confessions of faith and even catechisms were used by Baptists without question or apology.
When the second Great Awakening of about 1830 struck, Baptists were already in the middle of the modification of some of their thinking, with a modified Calvinism beginning to develop. Though Calvinism was still very strong, tendencies continued and even other tendencies were birthed which were to become a further threat to the remaining influence of Calvinism. Pietism was primary, while doctrinal aspects were secondary. Individualism in life began to reign, as opposed to corporate concerns being primary. Strong opposition to confessions developed.
This is not to say that Baptists fled their Calvinistic heritage at this point of history. It is to say that some tendencies, not all of them bad, began to develop, which if carried to an extreme could become very detrimental to their doctrinal heritage.
To summarize, the Calvinism of Baptists was under constant and direct attack in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, first from the revivalism of the Separates, then by Methodist Arminianism, and also from the Free Will Baptist movement, and finally from Charles G. Finney. Having embraced revivalism and its tendencies after the first great awakening, and having been suddenly vaulted to great prominence and influence among the people and the religious scene in America, Baptists were very interested in keeping their newly acquired religious leadership and in keeping their movement growing. As time wore on, the remnants of their Calvinism were still strong in some places, though modified. But even that amount of Calvinism became more difficult to defend before the simple, uneducated, common-sense man or even the rational, educated, philosophically trained man. Instead of continuing to hold and defend their Calvinistic theology, they strained their Calvinistic theological framework to accommodate the new religious mood of the day.
The change was slow, and Calvinism continued to be held and defended by some even into the twentieth century. But by the middle of that century, Calvinism was all but dead among Baptists, except for a weakened definition of the fifth point. Baptists of past history called the fifth point “the perseverance of the saints.” Baptists of the middle years of the twentieth century called it “The eternal security of the believer.”
History abounds with great Baptists who were Calvinists. The following is a partial list:
1. Isaac Backus, New England Baptist born 1724.
2. John Leland, New England Baptist born 1754.
3. James P. Boyce, founder and first president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.
4. J.L. Dagg, an early Southern Baptist theologian.
5. P.H. Mell, president of the Southern Baptist Convention for seventeen years, longer than any other president ever served.
6. Adoniram Judson, born in 1788, was the first foreign missionary to go forth from the United States.
7. Charles H. Spurgeon, the great English preacher and pastor of the nineteenth century.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

arunma

Flaming Calvinist
Apr 29, 2004
14,818
820
40
✟19,415.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Dmckay said:
One of the only groups that I am aware of that has never been Calvinist at its roots are the Swedish Baptists. These have always been more Arminian in their theology. Today, most of the Swedish Baptists are known by Baptist General Conference.

My church is part of the Baptist General Conference, and we are very Calvinist. Of course, we disagree with the BGC on this issue, so you're absolutely correct in your generalization.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.