Why are you a Baptist?

[Chris]

Wow. It's almost like you live in some foreign country with lots of free time and you've sat and thought through some of this stuff or something.....

 

[JonathanHunt]

May I suggest a couple of books for those who are wondering about all this historic baptist issues.

1) Strict and Particular Baptist by Kenneth Dix (Strict Baptist Historical Society)
2) Particular Baptist in Victorian England by Geoffrey Breed (Strict Baptist Historical Society)
3) History of the English Calvinistic Baptists by Robert Oliver (Banner of Truth)

Sorry, they are all written from the English perspective. Can anyone in USA recommend a comprehensive history book of the Baptists written by an American, for the Americans?

PS: If the authors have the surnames "Caner" or "Falwell", or if they were ex-USA Presidents... I'm sorry, no disrespect, but I will have to overlook them.

A more 'inclusive' history is 'The Baptists' by Tom Nettles.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Bob;

Some possible reasons why:

---Christian faith must be transferred and made local. It must be like a tree planted in different soil that springs up in that soil, rather than merely like a tree in a pot moved to foreign soil like a potted plant (the soil still being Western). Those denominations that have a rigid structure and many external rules or trademarks do not easily tranfer.

In other words we must strive to plant the Gospel without planting western institutions, or Western cultural traits. Give them Our Christ without neccessarily giving them our culture.

There is a lot of "culture" in the Presbyterian, confessional, often head-covering wearing, sometimes high church and liturgical Presbyterian churches. This stuff does not easily transfer. In Africa the Presbyterians were known for planting big square stone church buildings when everyone else lived in round, wood huts.

In Indonesia, the Dutch Reformed made the Javanese wear Dutch clothing as a sign of "civilization" and any Javanese who became a Christian had to take a Christian name (many Javanese names are from the Arabic). The first missionaries to the Javanese, after about 100 years were actually baptists, who made some slight success because they brought them Christ instead of rules laid down by a colonial power.

Also, if you go to the GKI church here (the Indonesian Presbyterians) you can hear almost all Western hymns merely translated instead of local forms used. The pastor wears a western shirt and tie instead of batik and the same liturgy is used.

I like Fanny Crosby and other hymns, but if we believe in hymn-singing then shouldn't each culture sing their own songs to God.



Also, the presbyterians have not regularly motivated the laymen as the baptists have. This may be in part due to the higher education required of Presbyterian pastors (hence we get most of our systematic theologies from Presbyterians and most of our missionaries from baptists).

The early spread of Christianity was almost entirely by laymen before the era of Contantinianism, then it became the job of the elite in the Roman Church, then it has become merely a lame program inside Arminian baptist churches. Most of the Reformers actually argued that the Great Commission no longer applied (Calvin did not, however..Luther did as well as many others though). It took William Carey's "THe Use of Means...." booklet to popularize the other side, that the Great Commission was, indeed, for us today.


Also, the structure of church gov't makes it hard for indigenous churches to spring up in some foreign lands. Very clearly on the PB it has been said that a church is not really a church unless "A,B, C..etc" and many of these things are lacking in small house churches in poor lands.

Therefore, many spontanously forming churches would not be considered churches until they were first checked up on by a real elder and often brought under the oversight of a larger local body, which often kills any local initiative.

Example: A bunch of locals read the Bible or hear an evangelist, they form a group to read the Bible and to pray. A respected local leader rises up and leads the people - with some flaws - in Bible teaching and does the best he can. And then a local presbytery informs him that his is not a true church and he is not qualified. If their church desires to continue it must come under the oversight of a larger body and a "real" pastor installed.

The baptists on the whole do a great job to encourage the good things that are being done rather than focusing on obsolete structures. The baptists really are leading the world in the hard places. There is a willingness to sit on mats and dress like locals and use local forms is Christ is being preached. Then, they are enable to study on their own and teach others. When dealing with a land of millions, one must focus on the main thing.


For local initiative to spring up in a foreign land church plants should all be (1) self-supporting, (2) self-governing and (3) self-propogating. These are missiological principles but yet are drawn from the example of the NT churches. All three of these 3 S's are hindered often by Presbyterian church gov't.



The baptists have been simple in message and worship and their church gov't also simple. Therefore, it is easily transferrably.

Well said Trevor. Well said. I think you've made some really good points. (And I'm a Presbyterian )

 

[blhowes]

1. Have you ever struggled with your Baptist beliefs?
In all seriousness, I never struggled with my Baptist beliefs until I joined the PB. As a baptist, I heard preaching that associated all paedobaptist churches with the RC church. The guilt by association worked, so I had no need to study further.

Just before I joined the PB, I had corresponded briefly with a Presbyterian pastor and I asked him for a biblical example why he baptized infants. He said that there was no place in scripture that explicitly told us to baptize infants. He told me that before I could understand why they baptized infants, I'd have to first understand covenant theology.

About the same time, I was on another Christian forum and saw a link to Matthew's retraction, where he explained why he switched from baptist to CT. That was really fascinating to read, especially those places where he talked about how he use to think and approach scripture as a baptist - I thought, "That's me". I wondered how he could make such a drastic change - and tried to imagine myself making that change. I ended up joining the PB to learn about CT to try and understand why they baptized infants. Little did I know that the reasons made sense.

As CT started making more and more sense, I struggled for some time trying to figure out whether CT or reformed baptist theology was correct. I've been on the fence for some time now, but I've added some extra padding to the fence to make it a bit more comfortable.

Perhaps the most humbling thing about the whole struggle was the realization that I just might not have the 'Biblical smarts' to figure out which is correct. That's not to say that I'd stop trying to figure it out, but I won't beat myself up over it. Its an important issue (I suppose) but for me its just not THAT important.

There are other things I'd rather struggle with. For example:

Luk 11:1 And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples.

I can relate to this request. I'd much rather struggle and focus my energies on learning how to pray, and to be disciplined enough to pray consistantly and fervently, then banging my head against the wall in frustration over the baptism issue.

Or:

Mat 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.

It would be wonderful to be better at sharing my faith regularly, regardless of the circumstances. It'd be wonderful, but its a struggle. So many times I've walked away thinking, "another missed opportunity to witness for Jesus".

These are just two areas that I'd much rather struggle with now. I'll still try and figure out the baptism issue, but I guess for me its just slightly less of a priority.