7.     . . . that we are controlled by a Hierarchy

First, the Bible does not teach that we should have a hierarchy of religious officials over the church. Pastors lead the congregation as a spiritual leader while the deacons assist him. We have already asserted the independence and authority of the local church. We are a part of several groups: our denominational offices in our local association, state conventions, and then the national convention.⁴ These groups could not control us if they wanted. The local church calls the pastor, sets the types of ministry we will have, and the amount of money they will send to the denomination for their missions.

Baptists do not believe in human heads over churches. We were not started like the Methodists by Wesley, or Lutherans by Luther, or Reformed by Calvin. Instead, we can say there was not a time in the Post-Apostolic age when Baptists began.⁵ We believe our teachings are in line with what churches in Acts taught and what Christ commissioned them to do. Christ is our head. It is his church according to Matt. 16:18.

8.    . . . that we are forced to believe in certain positions as a denomination

A denomination is a group of churches that voluntarily choose to work together and have similar beliefs. Our church is not bound to amendments passed at the Southern Baptist Convention. We are not given positions that we must take in order to be Southern Baptists.⁶ The debate over Calvinism is an example of this. There is enough latitude in our denomination to arrive at different interpretations on matters that do not impact salvation or the person and the work of Christ.

We do not subscribe to creeds or traditions as equal to Scripture. We have a common statement of faith that is a consensus of what fellow churches believe. When a church departs from these affirmations and ceases to identify with these teachings, the SBC acknowledges it.

Paul did not have the final authority to decide for the church in Corinth in the matter of the immoral man still serving in 1 Cor. 5:1-5. Instead, he urged them to act as a body to correct the error. They were responsible for their own church.

9.     . . . that we are more committed to being Baptists than to Christ

Baptists never chose the name “Baptist.” Instead, enemies of immersion of the believer called us that in derision.⁷ I’m not as much concerned about the historicity of the name going back to the time of Christ as I am with the practice. When a person is immersed as a believer they identify with Christ pictorially according to Gal. 3:27. We are following Christ in this way. Most believers who are baptized by immersion say they were baptized like Baptists.

Baptists have rescued believer’s baptism by immersion from the ash heap. They correctly assert that it is the only mode for demonstrating our faith in Christ and being a part of the church. You can say all you want “I don’t want to be called Baptist,” but there are certain Baptist distinctives, just like there are Calvinism, Arminianism, and Catholicism distinctives. We introduce people to Jesus; but if they read the Bible honestly, they clearly will see the Baptist positions.

Many have taken the Baptist name off the church, saying it is a turn off to the non-churched coming in the front door. Others just say we don’t want to be Baptist. I can’t understand how people who once were Baptist but now don’t want to be. Anyway, I choose to identify this church with timeless principles that have made the difference in people’s lives through the centuries: Baptist principles.

10.    . . . that we promote Antinomianism through our belief in Eternal Security

A minority of churches is called free-will Baptists, and they believe you can lose your salvation. Most Baptists believe once you are truly saved, you are always truly saved.⁸ The problem comes with those who falsely profess belief in Christ.

The term “antinomianism” refers to saying that you are a Christian, yet you live any way you want without any regard for Christ.⁹ If you have true faith in Christ, it truly will change you and help you to depart from the sin in your life that is destructive (Titus 2:11-12). The governance of the Holy Spirit becomes a restrainer against wrong instead of a dove that flies away if we dishonor the name of Christ.

I believe that a true Christian will wear the name honorably and demonstrate their faith by their lifestyle. Your acceptance of Christ now obligates you to live under His authority in your life.

11.    . . . that we promote a doctrinal statement over the Bible

We have covered this a little under hierarchies, but this is a common argument that comes up when defending our new doctrinal statement in 2000, which only clarified our 1963 confessional statement, bringing it up to date.¹⁰ Some moderates again said we were worshipping the Bible over Christ. The Bible is clear. The Bible supplies everything we need for spiritual edification, nourishment, and equipment in the world (2 Tim. 3:15-4:2). The Baptist Faith and Message is only an expression of faith that reflects the major teachings of the Bible, unlike the Apostles’ Creed that teaches belief in the “Holy Catholic Church.”¹¹ There is no contest between the Bible and The Baptist Faith and Message.

12.    . . . that we are unloving and uncompassionate

This is a recent accusation against Southern Baptists because of our belief in traditional values. So it goes: We are hate mongers because we believe certain lifestyles are wrong. The most compassionate thing someone can do is tell the truth when you’re deathly sick.

We are to be a light to those in darkness. But many in darkness don’t want the light (John 3:19-21). We are to hold the light as a standard (Phil. 2:15). We are sinners saved by grace and people should find the love of Christ here, even though they may disagree with us.

Much of our Baptist Legacy today is disappearing like a ship on the horizon. Many are content to let it drift out of sight. Just because you can’t see it, however, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Instead of lagging behind today, I think we ought to catch up with it and bring it back safely to harbor. Will you join me in this quest because I think it is needed today more than ever?

Dr. Dan Nelson, Pastor, First Baptist Church in Camarillo, California.  This post is a summary of a message he preached at the church on June 27, 2010.

Endnotes

⁴All entities of the Southern Baptist Convention that assist local churches in missions and fellowship development.

⁵Common claims by adherents in the group attributing these individuals to the father of their movements.

⁶Common practice in the documents and understanding of Southern Baptist Convention makeup and practice

⁷A common belief among many Baptist churches; especially those who trace the origin of Baptist belief and practice to apostolic times.

⁸Free-will Baptists are strongly in the minority among the vast majority of Baptist churches. Benjamin Randall one of the final convert’s under George Whitefield’s ministry was their founder in America.

⁹Antinomianism is a term used to describe adherence in words to doctrinal stances but license to live unrestrained, usually morally, by one’s doctrine. Rigid five-point Calvinism and Hyper-Calvinism have been accused of this practice at times. Baptists also have been accused of this practice because of their belief in eternal security.

¹⁰The most recent Baptist Faith and Message was revised to address issues that the old confessional of 1963 did not address. It was affirmed by the Convention in 2000 but not without controversy from moderates and those critical of the conservative resurgence within the convention.

¹¹The Apostles Creed is one of the most ancient creeds of the Early Church. It was developed and handed down many have believed by the apostles and their successors.

The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch by people who saw their lives. They assumed they were like Jesus by how they lived. All of us have been confronted by people who think they know what Baptists believe and practice. If these practices have not been associated with Baptists, however, they are wrong assumptions.

Today people have formed wrong assumptions based on misinformation and wrong conclusions. What are these wrong assumptions?

1.    . . . that the Church is a Denomination (Acts 14:23)¹.

Baptists believe every church is an independent autonomous body of baptized believers. We have no such thing as the Baptist church. We are affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention for purposes of missions and fellowship. Other groups refer to themselves as a universal entity. Yet, the Bible makes the distinction in Acts 14:23 where Paul was assisting in the ordination of leaders in every church.

This is important because what any cooperating Baptist does is not top down but from the local church on up. We are not controlled by other higher bodies. We think the local church has the authority to decide in matters of faith and practice. Therefore, we think every believer ought to be in a local church. Paul explains that we need to do more than just profess our faith in Christ, more than just participate in a universal fellowship of believers known as the kingdom of God; we need to take an active role in our communities because the church is local.

2.    . . . that believer’s baptism by immersion is just another form of baptism.

Infant or adult sprinkling is never taught in the Bible. Instead, the word transliterated baptism (baptizo) always means immerse or dunking in water.² That is how Jesus was baptized, and that is how the early church baptized. (Matt. 3:15-17, Rom. 6:4). They did not sprinkle.

We do not accept any other mode of baptism as a valid form of New Testament baptism. It may have been meaningful to you; but we ask you to be immersed as a believer in order to show that you follow Christ, that you believe in the gospel, that you have died to life without Christ, that you are raised to walk in Him, and how we will be resurrected. No other method pictures this.

3.    . . . that we have mass chaos at all our church business meetings.

Every member has a say in our church and it must be pretty good example because James Madison used it as a model of representative government when he wrote the constitution.

We have no chief who decides for the people. Every member has a vote. Jesus told His disciples to bring matters to the church when they had a controversy (Matt. 18:15-17). The assumption is that we will operate under the Lordship of Christ and have mutual love and respect for believers. We will accept the will of the majority (as each person seeks the leadership of the Holy Spirit) and go on with Christ’s work instead of holding grudges. That is not always the case but it beats shutting people out of the process. We would rather risk controversy than take away from the voice of the people.

4.    . . . that we are part of the Reformed Movement (Matthew 28:19-12).

This is a big controversy today because of many who want five-point Calvinism to be the rule of the day in all churches. We have churches that call themselves Reformed Baptists.

The Reformation started under Martin Luther, who broke from Catholicism. John Calvin delineated Reformed theology in his book Institutes of the Christian Religion and his other writings. His teachings on salvation have been summarized in the five basic points of the “TULIP.”³

Baptists did not believe that the Reformed movement of Luther and Calvin went far enough. Baptists went beyond the “Magisterial Reformation” of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin and became known as the “Radical Reformation.” Although the early Baptists agreed with many of the doctrinal beliefs of the Reformed Theology, they disagreed at other points and, in fact, many Baptists were persecuted for these beliefs by leaders of the Magisterial Reformation. The Reformers still sprinkled infants. They retained a Catholic church structure, and they oppressed those who did not agree with them. Baptists did not. So Baptists are not part of the mainline Reformation. Baptists called for adherence to Scripture, and did not cling to tradition like some of the Reformers.  Baptists allowed for separation from the corrupt church. We called for religious liberty, not favoritism of one group. We called for individual conscience in matters of faith and practice, not sponsorship by the family. We called for the authority of the local church, not a universal group that can give false assurance and has no accountability to a local body.

Jesus said He would be with churches that lead people to Him. Therefore, we must baptize like He was and do what He says. Baptists are not Reformed in the fullest sense.

5.    . . . that we are against political involvement of Christians

This has been hammered into the ground by moderates in the SBC who tout separation of church and state. So this point is basically for their benefit. The problem is separation of church and state means something far different today because of our heavily unchurched population. In the days of the Constitution, it meant the government could not set up a state church that forced residents to join. Today, it means that Christians have no voice at all in government or elections. That is a false assumption, for we are to be salt and light. We can stand against moral wrong—and are obligated to—without risking the government takeover of religion.

Paul told Timothy to encourage people to pray that their government officials and rulers would do right (1 Tim. 2: 1-2). That does not sound like a retreat from government, but an advance upon it. If Christians don’t stand against immorality and corruption, who will? It is perfectly okay for us to oppose wrong government.

6.    . . . that the Lord’s Supper and Baptism are Sacraments

A sacrament is a means of dispensing forgiving grace. Catholicism teaches that racking up enough of these points can earn you heaven when you die, but there is no assurance of salvation.

The Lord’s Supper and Baptism, rather, are ordinances that Christ has commanded us to observe in obedience to Him. The Lord’s Supper helps us remember Christ’s sacrifice for our sins on our behalf. They are not necessary to be saved but necessary to be an obedient Christian. The requirement for observance of each ordinance is our faith and trust in Christ as Savior, just as Philip told the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37-38.

Paul assumed believers would have more reverence for the Lord’s Table than what was going on in Corinth in 1 Cor. 11:25. To trust in both these ordinances for salvation is to place faith in the wrong source.  We only need to place our faith in Christ’s atoning work.

Dr. Dan Nelson, Pastor, First Baptist Church in Camarillo, California.  This post is a summary of a message he preached at the church on June 27, 2010.

Endnotes

¹All Scriptural citations and quotations are taken from the King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise indicated.

²Steve Lemke, Baptism Celebrates New Life in Christ, Vision: New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, Volume 66.1, Spring/Summer 2010.

³Sources responsible for the introduction of Reformed Theology in Christian thought and practice.

(to be continued …)

Listen to the podcast using the player below, or subscribe in iTunes by clicking the logo here, or the button in the sidebar. Leave your comments here with suggestions on how we can improve, guest suggestions, or to discuss the issues we raised. On iTunes, take a moment to write a quick review for us, or just click some stars to give us a rating.

Below are links to the items we discussed during the podcast:

Manhattan Declaration

Georgia Baptist Convention action

We are grateful to Dr. Ergun Caner for providing to us his perspective on the recent firing of a Christian wrestling coach by a Muslim high school principal in Dearborn, Michigan. Ergun Mehmet Caner is the President and Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, and professor of Apologetics and Theology at Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia. A former Sunni Muslim, Caner writes and speaks in the area of Global Apologetics. He can be reached at erguncaner.com and twitter.com/erguncaner.

There is irony in every line of this article from Christian Post.

In every Islamic Republic, operated by Sharia law, not only do sports mix with Islam, they are guided by it. Regularly Islamic Olympians are told to represent Allah well by their efforts. Prayer time is performed together as a team, to build the team character.

Yet in Dearborn, Michigan, a Christian coach (Gerald Marszalek) is fired by his Muslim principal (Imad Fadlallah). Why? because of his friendship with a volunteer coach who led a Muslim student to Christ at a summer camp. When the principal heard of this, he punched the student and told him that he disgraced his family!

Often Christians are amazed when Muslims protest Christian activities at public schools. Why are they upset? Do we not allow them to practice Islam in the schools? Why would they protest a Christian activity?

The answer is simple– Islam has never allowed RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

In over thirty countries around the world, Sharia Law, based on the Qur’an and the Hadith, allows for complete Islamic practice in every venture of life, especially in the school systems. What about Christians in Islamic countries?

They are only allowed RELIGIOUS TOLERATION.

In Islam, this is called the Pact of Umar, named after one of the first Caliphs, after the death of Muhammed in 632 AD. In it, Umar outlined the rules for Christians living in Muslim countries. Some of them include:

• Christians must allow their daughters to date and marry Muslim men, but Muslim women may never date or marry Christian men. You cannot stop the marriage of your Christian daughter to a Muslim, and the required conversion which follows.
• Christians cannot build new churches, or even repair the outside of older ones.
• Christians may not publicly proclaim their faith or witness.

The dilemma of Muslims living in America is clear- they do not understand true religious freedom. They cannot comprehend how any Christian is allowed to witness to a Muslim friend without being arrested, fired or worse.

The city of Dearborn, Michigan is a perfect example of the consequences of giving Muslims unfettered power to self-rule, even in the context of American Constitutional Law.

A simple examination of history clarifies:

1. When Muslims are in the minority in a country, they scream “religious freedom” and demand their rights. They will use this to garner power and political influence, playing the “race card” to get their way. They will protest and march in the streets, especially when the cameras are on them.
2. When Muslims are allowed to operate by Sharia Law in a democratic country, they will recognize Sharia over the democratic laws of that country, every single time.
3. When Muslims are in the majority, Sharia is imposed and Christians are immediately repressed.

The irony of Dearborn? According to the article, approximately one-third of the city’s population is Muslim. This may be the first event we have seen, but it is not the last. 1300 years of history tells us this is inevitable.

Religious FREEDOM teaches that a Muslim can build a Mosque wherever the city codes allow…

Religious FREEDOM also teaches that I can stand in front of that Mosque with a sign that says “Jesus Saves.”

Either my kinsmen learn this distinction, or they need to leave.

Do not forget the lives of thos that fought for us and gave their lives, land, and even their families in order for us to have our freedom.  But most of all, do not forget the One who gave His life for us to be free from sin.  Have a great 4th.

Baptists and Dissent

The idea of dissent as a virtue—whether a Baptist virtue or otherwise—is among the most nonsensical theories promulgated among mankind.

Dissent is neither a virtue nor a vice, so far as its intrinsic properties go. Dissenting to pay your taxes is generally a vice. Dissenting to participate in a plot to assassinate the President is generally a virtue. The act of dissenting, in and of itself, is neither noble nor vile—’tis all in the subject matter of one’s dissent.

Dissent is a part of the Baptist story, but dissent is not a distinctive of Baptist identity (or if it is, it has often been a part of the darker side of our identity). Where dissent is laudatory in Baptist life, it is because Baptists were willing to take unflinching stands on matters that other people saw differently or deemed tertiary.

Although dissent is not a Baptist distinctive, religious liberty is. Baptists are a people committed to religious liberty for all people. What is religious liberty? It is important to know, for false versions of this principle are seemingly omnipresent. Religious liberty is the conviction that the temporal sword ought not to be employed in strictly spiritual matters. So, unless it has to do with policemen, armed troops, vigilante mobs, judicial rulings, or legislative dictates, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Baptist principle of religious liberty.

Indeed, it was the conviction of our Baptist forebears that churches and associations had the obligation to govern their own affairs according to their doctrinal convictions. It was precisely because they wanted to be more strict WITHIN their own churches that they wanted the government to be less strict—nay, uninvolved altogether—in governing their churches from without. Those who made scruples over baptism and regenerate church membership, believing in a more restrictive purity in church membership were the Baptist objects of state-sponsored persecution. Religious liberty enabled Baptists to form congregations composed only of those who did not dissent from their pursuit of obedience to Christ’s commands.

Certainly there is not the slightest scintilla of biblical witness for dissent as virtue. There are, however, volumes of evidence for the idea that the temporal sword ought not to be wielded in spiritual matters. There are two realms, typified by Roger Williams’s idea of the “Two Tables of the Law.” The Baptist position is not that spiritual matters ought not to be governed, but simply that the state has not the authority to govern them. Rather, that authority belongs solely to the church. The effect of course, is that every individual has liberty—if one differs with the governing decisions of one’s church, one can leave it and join with (or even form) another church more to one’s liking, and the church cannot invoke the powers of the state to stop it. Our commitment to religious liberty means that we believe it is the obligation of the government not to punish dissent over matters strictly dealing with one’s relationship with God.

Yet the biblical model is a church strictly and powerfully governed. I almost mentioned this in my earlier post about the death penalty—the early church not only wasn’t opposed to the death penalty, but they also executed it themselves. But please note, they did it by exercise of the spiritual sword—the power of God—and not by the power of the government. The church that slays people for discrepancies in their contribution statements bears absolutely no resemblance to these modern-day coffee klatches so careful to tiptoe around matters that God has declared but people have relegated to tertiary status, but it also resembles not at all the church so spiritually weak that it must call upon soldiers or policemen to do its fighting for it.

I’m thankful for the Baptist commitment to religious liberty. It reminds the government not to presume to take up authority that belongs to God alone. It reminds the church not to trust in chariots or horses. Let’s not mutilate it into yet another postmodern exaltation of “diversity” over substance. We belong neither to pre-modern society, modern society, nor post-modern society. We are citizens of Heaven, and once we arrive there, dissent will be entirely a thing of our past. Thank you, Lord.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.–Thomas Jefferson(From the various quotes of Jefferson on Politics and Government. Emphasis mine)

“One of the amendments to the Constitution… expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382 (Emphasis mine)

Some in Baptist circles would have one believe that a pastor cannot state his scriptural beliefs about certain political positions. I am not referring to endorsing a candidate; I do not believe that a pastor should endorse a candidate for public office from the pulpit. At the same time a pastor should not be held hostage from sharing his beliefs if asked to do so by a member of his congregation.

While Thomas Jefferson’s letter, written to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, speaks about a wall of separation, it is clear from his other writings that he did not mean for this law to keep the person in public office from relying on his faith as a basis for making decisions. I must admit that I am over my head in understanding the intricacies of this subject. Because of that I read and listen to others that have much more intelligence than I concerning this issue. Listen to Pastor Ronnie Rogers third sermon (click below for the audio). He expresses it much more intelligently than I.

The continual revision of historical perspectives does much to undermine both our theology and our ecclesiology. Ronnie Rogers does an admirable job of demonstrating the fact that the hallowed phrase ‘separation of church and state’ appears nowhere in the Constitution and also frames the context of Thomas Jefferson’s correspondence with the Danbury Baptist Association. His perspective of dissenters especially in the context of Baptist stalwarts such as Obadiah Homes and John Leland are a welcome corrective to the one-sided drum beat that continually strips the public square of any reference to the Lord. Attempts to adjust the establishment clause and reinterpret the free exercise portion of the First Amendment have created a place where references to God are politically incorrect in the public domain. The sermon leaves me with a couple of burning questions which I hope are not the result of heartburn.

• How do we as Baptists maintain a true conception of religious liberty with the current reconstruction of the First Amendment?
• Do you think pastors of today would be willing to suffer such persecution to maintain the biblical distinctive of believer’s baptism by immersion?

We are pleased to present, in our latest audio resource, a sermon series on the subject preached by Ronnie W. Rogers. He serves as the senior pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Norman, Oklahoma. Click here for biographical information about Pastor Rogers, and be sure to visit his blog.

Today, we present the first message in this series, titled, “Those Darn Baptists.” In this message, he lays much groundwork for what will come in subsequent messages, and challenges many of our current notions about what is meant by a “separation of church and state.”

Click below to listen to this message, then feel free to comment on what you’ve heard.