Jump to Page: 1 2 3 4
EnzeruAkuma
Citizen
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 75
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Baptist fundementals 101
At some point this was suggested, so i thought i would put it down. Below is a list of some of the founding baptist principles. I'll give a brief explanation of each one, but if you want more details thisWikipedia article on Baptist Beleifs is fairly comprehensive and includes some of the differentiating understandings amongst the baptist communities.
Biblical Authority
Historically, baptists have held this belief otherwise called "Sola Scriptura". Basically meaning the scriptures are the basis or sole authority in matters of religion or "God's truth". The 1689 Baptist Confession states it as "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience... ".
In more recent times "Prima Scriptura" has been widely accepted. The concept of which is the bible is held in high authority, but with other allowed ways of guidance.
Autonomy of the Local Church
The basic of this is that each congregation has full control over themselves in matters of Policy, Polity, and Doctrine. No other outside or heirarchial structure, such as bishops or a governing body as seen in the Catholic church etc, has rule over what the congregation and membership decides.
A relatively new conception called Conventions has come into play. Which these were formed as a way to pool resources etc of many different congregations. However they do not have authority over how each congregation decides to run itself. They could basically be seen as a larger church where the members are churches themselves.
There have been somewhat recent exceptions to the rule; namely in organizations such as the Southern Baptist Convention. Which made it manditory for employment to sign a statement of beleifs. And though churches are still given somewhat free reign, it has caused in the last couple of decades a split over different doctrines.
However there as still many "Independent Baptists" which have no affliation with the conventions.
Priest-hood of all beleivers:
Basically says that each individual beleiver has direct access to God without the need of heirarchal structures, namely priests. And that ultimately each believer is responsible for understanding the bible and its applications.
Ordinances:
There are traditionally two ordinances: "Beleivers Baptism" and "The Lord's Supper".
An Ordinance means "obedience to a command that Christ has given us". They are basically practices seen as given by command of Christ to follow. They're related to Sacraments, but with shying away from the idea or language that Grace is imparted through them. They are basically seen as solely symbolic. Though in recent years baptists world over have been rethinking the theology on that.
Some baptist congregations such as Free Will baptists etc. have adopted foot washing or other ordinances as well.
Beleivers Baptism means that it is a choice of the believer after proffessing Christ as Savior. And is done as a sign of obedience to the example and command of Jesus. As such Baptists generally reject the idea of Infant Baptism, seeing it as the Parrent being unable to make a decision such as that for the child. In otherwords it's an individual and personal decision.
Commonly it is done by full body immersion in water.
The Lord's Supper is patterned after the last supper of Jesus and his disciples as depicted in the gospels, and is done on the basis of "do this in rememberence of me". Wine/juice and Bread are distributed to and eaten by the people as symbols of Jesus' blood and body in "rememberance".
Individual Soul Liberty
The basic concept of individual soul liberty is that, in matters of religion, each person has the liberty to choose what his/her conscience or soul dictates is right, and is responsible to no one but God for the decision that is made. A person may then choose to be a Baptist, a member of another Christian denomination, an adherent to another world religion, or to choose no religious belief system, and neither the church, nor the government, nor family or friends may either make the decision or compel the person to choose
Separation of Church and State
The concept your probably familiar with: where local or national government has no right to infringe upon the beleifs and practices of congregants or believers. Historically Baptists have been some of the key leaders in the implementation of the contept of "Freedom of Religion" in England, U.S. and other countries. Seeing the Church and State as seperate entities designed for seperate purposes.
Although historically it has been held that religion is not to influence or play a part in government but simply that there should never be a government established religion or that the Church should hold governing authority over the state.
Two Offices
Generally baptists have recognized only two scriptural offices:
Pastor: Policy usually dictates that the church is able to 'license' and ordain individuals as ministers to serve clergical services (preach, perform marriages/funeral services, etc). Each ordination is purveiw of the local church, and not denominationally. Though generally accepted anyway.
Deacons: Also an ordained position and is generally accepted such as with Pastors. The purpose of a deacon is to help the ministers in things such as The Lord's Supper and serve the congregations needs. In recent decades they've also taken on a much more administrative role.
With both of these offices there are different restrictions and alowances held by different congregations. For example some will alow women and homosexuals to be ordained for one or both, while others will not. This is a big deal with some conventions such as the Southern Baptist Convention which holds that neither can hold either office. And still others will put other restrictions; such as divorce being a disqualifier.
And that's about it.
|
|
7/4/2008, 4:40 am
|
PM EnzeruAkuma
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Thank you for posting this, EnzeruAkuma. 
Biblical Authority
It makes sense to throw Sola Scriptura out the window, since much of what we know, which almost everyone alive today acknowledges, has refuted much of the Bible's literal interpretation.
Autonomy of the Local Church
Normally I would say this goes against the idea of including these churches within the same denomination, but Individual Soul Liberty in itself seems like a good thing to tie them all together with.
Priest-hood of all beleivers
I guess they just realized that priests were making **** up as they went along. 
Ordinances
Believer's Baptism – At least they acknowledge that an infant is too young to decide their own theological beliefs. But what they don't seem to account for (or maybe they count on it) is the fact that by the time the child is old enough to think critically, childhood indoctrination is so embedded that it is often difficult to think critically about what they have been taught to believe.
The Lord's Supper – There's just something wrong with drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a martyr, even if it only symbolic. By the same token, the whole idea of displaying a crucifix everywhere is pretty creepy as well, especially with a corpse hanging from it. I don't see people displaying guns everywhere to remember MLK, JFK, or Lennon, or eating things to symbolize their flesh.
Individual Soul Liberty
The Phelps really need to call themselves something other than Baptist. You and the good Pastor around these parts, however, are wonderful advocates of this tenant.
Separation of Church and State
Quote: "The concept your probably familiar with: where local or national government has no right to infringe upon the beleifs and practices of congregants or believers."
This should be extended to non-believers, but I agree that religion should not be allowed to influence the government, and this would have the inadvertent affect of not infringing on non-believers and believers alike.
Two offices
Screw the Convention. They sound like a bunch of bigots.
|
|
7/4/2008, 7:57 pm
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
EnzeruAkuma
Citizen
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 75
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Lesigner Girl said:
Thank you for posting this, EnzeruAkuma.
Not a problem.
Biblical Authority
It makes sense to throw Sola Scriptura out the window, since much of what we know, which almost everyone alive today acknowledges, has refuted much of the Bible's literal interpretation.
What i find interesting is that whenever i look into these principles historically they always seem to have a different sense in the beginning than what it has today. Sola Scriptura for example always seemed to be applied purely to spiritual matters. Whereas over time we've applied it to government, science, etc. In cases like this i always have to wonder if the founders of religions or doctrines wouldn't just be shaking their heads at how people hold them today.
Autonomy of the Local Church
Normally I would say this goes against the idea of including these churches within the same denomination, but Individual Soul Liberty in itself seems like a good thing to tie them all together with.
I think the founders really had a sense of needing to let people decide things for themselves. Yet still understood the need for structure even in a minimal state.
Priest-hood of all beleivers
I guess they just realized that priests were making **** up as they went along.
I think it was something of a continuation on the principles Martin Luther put forth. Who basically started making his choices out of being pissed at the church at the time.
Ordinances
Believer's Baptism – At least they acknowledge that an infant is too young to decide their own theological beliefs. But what they don't seem to account for (or maybe they count on it) is the fact that by the time the child is old enough to think critically, childhood indoctrination is so embedded that it is often difficult to think critically about what they have been taught to believe.
Yeah, i think though that's what started the whole debate on an 'age of accountability'. The whole premise on that debate is at what age is a person capable of making critical choices.
Unfortunately for some of us that age never seems to come...
The Lord's Supper – There's just something wrong with drinking the blood and eating the flesh of a martyr, even if it only symbolic. By the same token, the whole idea of displaying a crucifix everywhere is pretty creepy as well, especially with a corpse hanging from it. I don't see people displaying guns everywhere to remember MLK, JFK, or Lennon, or eating things to symbolize their flesh.
Yeah this is probably one of the things i and baptists would start getting seperated on. Biblical authority starts being the other one.
Individual Soul Liberty
The Phelps really need to call themselves something other than Baptist. You and the good Pastor around these parts, however, are wonderful advocates of this tenant.
I find the Phelps clan almost endlessly intriguing. Particularly the Patriarch. Did you know that in his younger years, when he was a lawyer, he actually fought on cases for homosexual causes?
It's like at some point the man flipped out.
Separation of Church and State
Quote: "The concept your probably familiar with: where local or national government has no right to infringe upon the beleifs and practices of congregants or believers."
This should be extended to non-believers, but I agree that religion should not be allowed to influence the government, and this would have the inadvertent affect of not infringing on non-believers and believers alike.
Well, an this is one reason i put in the link to the article, the context i think had a lot to do with the principles foundations. It was built up in light of state sponsored religions, like the Anglican church, and state run religions, like with the Roman Catholic church.
Two offices
Screw the Convention. They sound like a bunch of bigots.
The SBC is something of an oddity. They hold to being baptists and yet constantly set perameters completely the opposite of baptist principles.
I don't think it was always like that though. It's bigotry etc seems to be brought on mostly due to it's leadership in recent decades more than anything. I have a couple of books on the history of them, i should really read them. I'm somewhat familiar with them though due to my surroundings i guess. Either in perspective of for or against.
Our associate pastor actually use to work for them before they came up with the set of beleifs thing employees had to sign. He ended up being fired purely on the basis that he refused to sign it.
|
|
7/5/2008, 10:13 pm
|
PM EnzeruAkuma
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Re: Founders of Christianity
I see it being completely opposite. Religion and government were even more inseparable "back in the day," and it was illegal (punishable by death) to have heretical beliefs. Religion also has a long history of getting in the way of science, killing scientists for alchemy and for describing theories that contradict the Bible. If it weren't for Christianity, we might have visited the moon 2 or 3 centuries years ago, have a colony somewhere off this planet by now, and have found a cure for cancer a long time ago, among other things.
Religion still tries to butt its nose into government and science, but it is now safer for us to fight back when this happens.
Re: Martin Luther
I totally understand being pissed off at the Catholic Church when they pretty much ruled everything, but it still dumbfounds me that someone could see how wrong they were, but yet still believe in the same book that the Catholic Church itself compiled after cherry picking various old myths around the doctrine they themselves wanted to create to begin with.
Re: Age of accountability
I agree, that age never seems to come for a lot of people, and it's very unfortunate.
Re: The Lord's Supper
Yeah this is probably one of the things i and baptists would start getting seperated on. Biblical authority starts being the other one.
This is good to hear, lol. Do other Baptists give you a hard time about it?
Re: Fred Phelps
He actually fought for homosexual causes when he was younger? Maybe he's a closet gay and started to hate himself after some fundy got his clutches into him and made him feel like an abomination.
I looked on wikipedia just now and it says how he fought for black rights, but there's nothing there about him fighting for gay rights. Do you know of an article I can read about this?
The SBC is something of an oddity. They hold to being baptists and yet constantly set perameters completely the opposite of baptist principles.
This sounds typical of "big religion."
Kudos to your pastor for refusing to sign the SBC's statement of trash.
|
|
7/6/2008, 3:14 pm
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
EnzeruAkuma
Citizen
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 75
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Lesigner Girl said:
Re: Founders of Christianity
I see it being completely opposite. Religion and government were even more inseparable "back in the day," and it was illegal (punishable by death) to have heretical beliefs. Religion also has a long history of getting in the way of science, killing scientists for alchemy and for describing theories that contradict the Bible. If it weren't for Christianity, we might have visited the moon 2 or 3 centuries years ago, have a colony somewhere off this planet by now, and have found a cure for cancer a long time ago, among other things.
Religion still tries to butt its nose into government and science, but it is now safer for us to fight back when this happens.
Everything you said i've said. An i think, in however much the amount they saw it, the founders relised that problem.
Re: Martin Luther
I totally understand being pissed off at the Catholic Church when they pretty much ruled everything, but it still dumbfounds me that someone could see how wrong they were, but yet still believe in the same book that the Catholic Church itself compiled after cherry picking various old myths around the doctrine they themselves wanted to create to begin with.
Probably the same reason i did. I found that when you stopped reading it how they want you to read it, you get something else entirely. And that something you saw was good enough to give another chance.
Re: The Lord's Supper
Yeah this is probably one of the things i and baptists would start getting seperated on. Biblical authority starts being the other one.
This is good to hear, lol. Do other Baptists give you a hard time about it?
Other christians do. But i understand the reasons why they do much more than they may ever realise for themselves. And that what they do and say to me is doing much more harm to them. Which actually makes me want to stay beside them and try to help them out of it.
Re: Fred Phelps
He actually fought for homosexual causes when he was younger? Maybe he's a closet gay and started to hate himself after some fundy got his clutches into him and made him feel like an abomination.
I looked on wikipedia just now and it says how he fought for black rights, but there's nothing there about him fighting for gay rights. Do you know of an article I can read about this?
No i don't, but maybe i was remembering the black rights thing and just thought it odd that he was willing to fight for some rights then completely changed his mind.
The SBC is something of an oddity. They hold to being baptists and yet constantly set perameters completely the opposite of baptist principles.
This sounds typical of "big religion."
Kudos to your pastor for refusing to sign the SBC's statement of trash.
That place seems to attract great people. It's my main reason for wanting to fight for it to keep going. Even if i don't always agree with the religious thoughts.
|
|
7/9/2008, 1:36 am
|
PM EnzeruAkuma
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Probably the same reason i did. I found that when you stopped reading it how they want you to read it, you get something else entirely. And that something you saw was good enough to give another chance.
Have you also been reading the apocrypha? Or just the stuff Christianity's founders chose to include into the Bible?
Other christians do. But i understand the reasons why they do much more than they may ever realise for themselves. And that what they do and say to me is doing much more harm to them. Which actually makes me want to stay beside them and try to help them out of it.
I hope you succeed in helping a few.
No i don't, but maybe i was remembering the black rights thing and just thought it odd that he was willing to fight for some rights then completely changed his mind.
I was thinking that might have been what happened, lol. It does seem a bit strange that a white man can fight for black civil rights and still be so hateful toward gays, but there is actual a biblical basis to it. The Bible says nothing about "dark skinned people," "Africans," etc., but it specifically states that a homosexual act is an "abomination" that is punishable by death. It also calls polyester an abomination, but that's one of those things that always gets overlooked.
I think another case can be made that it's obvious to even the most ignorant person on the face of the earth that people cannot choose the color of skin that they are born with, but they don't understand that people are born with their sexual preferences as well, whether they are only attracted to people of the opposite gender, the same gender, or some degree of both. Where it becomes extremely illogical is the fact that if the critics themselves are truly 100% heterosexual, they would be utterly disgusted at the mere thought of having sex with someone of the same gender, and it would be ridiculous for anyone to do something that utterly disgusts them AND have to deal with the ostrasization and hatred that might result from it. For this reason, I think that anyone who claims that sexuality is a "choice" is really bisexual themselves, to one degree or another (or even completely gay), and the ones who are most vocal against homosexuality probably lean more in that direction than toward heterosexuality. It's like they believe that "God" gave everyone this tendency as a test, only the "righteous" ones will overcome this test, and anyone who doesn't overcome this test is influenced by Satan.
I imagine the Phelps clan are probably a bunch of closet gays and only choose to "act" heterosexual, in accordance with the Bible. I just wonder if they wear polyester and eat shrimp, or if they too overlook that part of Deuteronomy.
That place seems to attract great people. It's my main reason for wanting to fight for it to keep going. Even if i don't always agree with the religious thoughts.
It would definitely be nice to attract people away from more restrictive churches and into yours.
|
|
7/9/2008, 7:33 pm
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
EnzeruAkuma
Citizen
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 75
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Lesigner Girl said:
Have you also been reading the apocrypha? Or just the stuff Christianity's founders chose to include into the Bible?
That and then some.
No i don't, but maybe i was remembering the black rights thing and just thought it odd that he was willing to fight for some rights then completely changed his mind.
I was thinking that might have been what happened, lol. It does seem a bit strange that a white man can fight for black civil rights and still be so hateful toward gays, but there is actual a biblical basis to it. The Bible says nothing about "dark skinned people," "Africans," etc., but it specifically states that a homosexual act is an "abomination" that is punishable by death. It also calls polyester an abomination, but that's one of those things that always gets overlooked.
..........
I imagine the Phelps clan are probably a bunch of closet gays and only choose to "act" heterosexual, in accordance with the Bible. I just wonder if they wear polyester and eat shrimp, or if they too overlook that part of Deuteronomy.
I thought something similiar once. Then i saw this documentary on them and now it seems more to me it's just people who are frightened and are looking for security in all the wrong ways and all the wrong places.
|
|
7/11/2008, 1:32 am
|
PM EnzeruAkuma
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
If you've been reading the apocrypha, then you must know about the clay pidgeons. 
What are the Phelps clan so afraid of? Finding out that their beliefs are all wrong?
|
|
7/11/2008, 7:56 pm
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
EnzeruAkuma
Citizen
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Registered: 04-2006
Posts: 75
Karma: 1 (+1/-0)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Lesigner Girl said:
If you've been reading the apocrypha, then you must know about the clay pidgeons.
What are the Phelps clan so afraid of? Finding out that their beliefs are all wrong?
Yes i know about them.
And they are afraid of that, but it's more than that i think. What they are ultimately afraid of is something that's maybe not capable of being nailed down in a general way. But what i find is that the louder one is, the more insecure they really are. This does not change in religion. The more sure one makes themselves, the more stalwart and hell bent they are about being the ones that are right about everything, especially subjects they sensibly would know little about even if they have a book "explaining it to them". This simplicity of assuredness is characteristic of someone who worries about being left out, of being forgotten and of being average etc. Or afraid of something else entirely and the head strong idealism is something that offers security.
I think the Phelps clan is afraid of different things individually. But i think one of the main things is that they are afraid of being nothing in the annals of history. They say it somewhat when saying "It is our job to inform them of their unrighteousness...". They do things that will gain attention, get them known in the minds of people.
And that's maybe how it started; Fred Phelps perhaps got a taste of the celebrity status being on the wrong side of things (as fighting for black rights in those days would've in many places), and he saw that this was something that would make him even more known and hated. After all, hatred in itself is a power trip all on its own. From there it just grew into what it is now.
As for the rest they've simply followed along. The woman leader who's name i forget got that power taste and was afraid of loosing it. And further down i think that really the younger ones are simply afraid of being forsaken. They already saw the dissolution of family ties going against Fred Phelps' ways brings when two of his kids decided they no longer could go along with it. And they're afraid of the same happening to them. I'll be very interested in what happens with them in the future as they grow beyond a need of reliance upon the Phelps family.
|
|
7/11/2008, 10:49 pm
|
PM EnzeruAkuma
|
Lesigner Girl
Minerva
Worldly Traveler (premium)
Runboard staff member
Registered: 11-2005
Province: SW MI, USA
Posts: 5128
Karma: 89 (+103/-14)
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Baptist fundementals 101
Shirley?
It's an interesting observation, fighting for black rights was unpopular in those days, while picketing funerals is unpopular now (thank goodness). This could explain why they're not fighting for civil rights nowadays, because it isn't controversial enough to get their names in the media.
Instead of leaving a positive mark on society, as could have happened if they had stuck to fighting for good things, they'll now go down in history as a bunch of crackpots. What a sad legacy to leave; so sad, in fact, that I would rather be forgotten than to leave that kind of legacy.
I suppose one positive thing can come of the Phelps' behavior, and that is uniting people against such hatred. Even other fundamentalist Christians agree that it's disrespectful (to say the least) to picket the funerals of dead soldiers, which gives them something in common with more liberal Christians and non-Christians. Further, by connecting these funeral protests with homosexuality, it brings the topic of gay rights front and center, prompting people to speak up for gay rights when they might have remained silent otherwise. Combine this with the gut reaction people often have to disagree with something just because a certain person or group (the Phelps in this case) says it, and I think it can only help the gay rights movement rather than hinder it.
If the Phelps had stuck to picketing government places instead of funerals, some people might have actually listened to them. Could they really be that dense? Or could it have been their plan all along to unite people by making themselves the enemy? I doubt the latter to be the case, but it was an interesting idea that popped into my head nevertheless.
|
|
7/12/2008, 4:03 pm
|
PM Lesigner Girl
Read Blog
|
Add to this discussion
Jump to Page: 1 2 3 4
Powered by AkBBS 0.9.5b - Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 12/1/2008, 7:19 pm EDT
|
|
|
