Baptist Assembly: Day 1


So the 2012 Baptist Assembly starts today and I’m kinda excited. I’m really looking forward to seeing some friends (especially the guys that don’t stay in Johannesburg like Malcolm and Rocky). I’m also looking forward to some great discussion, there are sound thinkers in the Union and I love to spend time getting sharpened by them. I’m looking forward to the morning devotionals (which were a highlight for me last year) and the keynote addresses (last year there were some outstanding expository sermons, especially Trent and ilk). Oh, and Gideon Mpeni is going with me and I’m really looking forward to introducing him to all that is good about being connected.

I’m a bit miffed that the Assembly is over a weekend, a Sunday away from the flock. I’m sure that the conference could (and maybe should) run from Tuesday to Friday. But the joy is that while I’m away our congregation will, for the next two weeks, receive teaching from two preachers from amongst our own number for the very first time, Charles and Gideon. Also while I’m on the Westrand I get to preach away from home this week which is always exciting.

Basically I’m going into the Assembly on a high note; which is much better than last year when I went in on an apprehensive note. I’ll check in regularly and hopefully take some good pics this year :).

Going Dotty (Part 7)


<— Click here for Part 6

And so this is it, Christo Beetge’s* last installment.

In four previous editions we have been asking, and progressively answering, this very practical question, “What does it mean to be a ‘Baptist’?” We come now to the concluding article in this five-part series conceived to help us as a church.

family communicate more effectively and intentionally when we use technical designations such as ‘Baptist’. We have lamented the fact that increasingly it seems to be the case today that people who call themselves “Baptists” or “Methodists” or “Presbyterians” are unable to define what they mean when using such specific terminology. Yes, admittedly we live in a day where we increasingly shy away from being specific because it is not “politically correct” to make distinctions based on “privately held convictions”, since the philosophy of our age denies that there is any absolute truth. Such thinking is very much part of life today, but, in my experience it is not so much that people are unwilling to define their terminology, but more likely that they are unable to do so with any confidence. The reason why people are unable to articulate the distinctions between religious groups is that our post-modern world has successfully discouraged us from being aware of such potentially divisive issues. I am persuaded that ignorance is actually the problem – ignorance regarding church history and regarding Bible doctrine. It is to help bring some clarity then to the term “Baptist” that this series of articles has been written. These articles have sought simply to answer the very reasonable question, “What freight is implied by the term ‘Baptist’?”

Thus far nine issues have been raised. We have argued historically that Baptists are a peculiar group of believers who hold in common a commitment to a bouquet of convictions called ‘Baptist Principles’. To this point we have mentioned and briefly discussed the following:

  • The Direct Lordship of Jesus Christ – every believer must by definition have a direct relationship with God the Father mediated only through the Person and work of God the Son;
  • The Priesthood of all Believers – every believer is a priest unto God;
  • The Congregational Life – because every individual believer has this direct access to God through Christ and is enabled by the indwelling Spirit to be a priest unto God, such members have the right and the responsibility to participate constructively and definitively in the life of the local congregation;
  • The Authority and Sufficiency of the Bible – all matters of Faith and practise must be regulated and shaped by direct reference to the written Word which God has inspired, and preserved in written form for our eternal good;
  • The Priority of Verbal Proclamation in worship and service – since saving faith comes from hearing the Word of God, our activities in mission, evangelism and discipleship must be heavily centered upon verbal proclamation and application of all of Scripture;
  • Regenerate Church Membership – only those who are willing to make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who engage in good works may be considered as members of a local church;
  • Separation of Church and State – the authority of civil authorities is limited to civil matters, and must not encroach upon the authority of parents in the home nor on the authority of believers in the local church;
  • The Two Ordinances – only two ceremonies were ordered by the Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ, namely baptism of confessors in Christ by immersion in water, and the eating of the Lord’s Supper as an act of remembrance in which Christ Jesus is present.
  • The Autonomy of the Local Church – each local church with its formally recognised members and biblically qualified leaders, operating in obedience to the Scriptures and in the power of the Holy Spirit is not subservient to the authority of any other ecclesiastical body. There is no “Head Office” wielding authority and control over “branches”. Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, is the Head of the Church. He mediates His authority by means of the Word and the Spirit directly into the local church and its members. The Church Universal is made up of local bodies, churches, that operate in obedience to God’s written revelation. Such practical operation and ministry happens without any additional level of authority being inserted between Jesus Christ and such local church families. Whilst local churches, in recognition of their inter-dependence upon one another, may associate and co-operate together for the benefit of the Kingdom of Christ, such association and co-operation does not explicitly or implicitly constitute another level of superior authority over the local church. In this respect Baptists are very different to Methodists, Anglicans, NG churches, etc.

Incidentally, just recently a very helpful practical example of this ninth principle, the issue of authority, appeared in the South African media. The Roman Catholic young lady, Francesca Zackey from Benoni, who claimed to be receiving “visitations and messages from the Virgin Mary” was instructed by “Head Office”, namely some ecclesiastical individual not directly associated with the local church to which she belonged, to cease from seeing people and speaking to the press about her “supernatural experiences”. As Baptists, we would say that the only people with any ecclesiastical authority in Francesca’s life are the Elders of, and the fellow-believers who belong to, that church.

So, whilst we are sceptical about what Francesca is doing, and are certainly critical of her alleged advice to a particular lady to look into the sun in order to catch a glimpse of the Virgin Mary, we would argue that the only people with relevant ecclesiastical authority in her life to admonish her would be the leadership within her own local church – not some “higher authority” in the church hierarchy. I trust the point regarding authority in the life of the individual believer and local group of believers is clear?

Related to this point in some sense is the final Baptist Principle known as “Freedom of Conscience“. Because Baptists believe as we do in the direct Lordship of Jesus Christ and the authoritative role of the Scriptures in the life of a believer who is actively dependent upon the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, we want to defend the right of each individual to operate, within the law of the land, according to their own conscience before God. God alone is Lord of the conscience. James 4:12 and 1 Cor 4:3-4 establish this principle for us. We acknowledge that all people will give an account of themselves to Christ on the Day of Judgment. We have no right in the local church to demand an “absolute and blind obedience” in a manner that equates differing from the church with differing from God. This Baptist principle is best appreciated in the light of Church history and what can best be described as “Ecclesiastical Totalitarianism”.

For this reason, we Baptists want to defend what we believe to be the inalienable right of people to live according to the dictates of their own conscience. So, for instance, as a result of this tenth Principle, we will be willing to debate with local Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance. We believe they are mistaken in their convictions, and will seek to persuade them regarding the truth of Scripture. We will also obey Eph 5:11 and seek to expose such error. But, we will defend their right to continue in propagating their error if they so desire.

We would be opposed to their being restricted by civil authorities to live according to these (erroneous) convictions they have. We would be opposed to the civil authorities taking action against them on the basis of their error. Because we value the freedom we claim to have to live according to our consciences, we want to fight for the right of all people, likewise, to be allowed to live according to their consciences, even if we believe them to be wrong. Vengeance and coercion belong ultimately to God. As long as people are not in contravention of the law of the land, we will not call for punishment or coercion to be applied.

In the context of the local church, we see the importance of defining and recording up-front our convictions in a Statement of Faith. People then join us on the basis of their agreement with this Statement of Faith. In situations of conviction that are not dealt with by our Statement of Faith, we would simply seek to persuade people from the Scriptures, but we would not otherwise seek to bind their consciences. We would refrain from such action precisely because of our commitment to this tenth principle. Maybe it must be stated emphatically that this principle does not imply that we believe everybody to be right in whatever their convictions are. We will certainly not on the basis of this principle defend a “free for all” in terms of error being taught in the local church, or Biblically indefensible positions being held in the name of freedom of conscience. No, Baptists have simply believed historically by this principle that we do not have the authority before God to use manipulative “force” (emotional or physical) to bring about compliance. People must be left to stand or fall before the Lord – provided of course that their freedom is not intentionally undermining unity in the local church body.

As Baptists, we want to apply Zechariah’s prophecy recorded in Luke 1:74-75, and nurture people who will serve God “without fear in holiness and righteousness before Him all [their] days”. We must be reminded that, for over 1000 years, amidst the mentality of the so-called “royal prerogative of kings” in the life and death for their subjects, this freedom of conscience did not exist! Baptists have fought for this freedom, and we must cherish it!

So, we have arrived at the place then, where we can peruse these ten principles and meaningfully answer the question for ourselves and for others, “Am I a ‘Baptist’ by conviction or simply through force of circumstance?” Here is the challenge then: The next time someone asks you, “What do Baptists believe?“, will you be willing and able to speak about more than simply the amount of water used in baptism? Will you be able, in an amiable and persuasive way, to mention and expand upon issues such as:

  • The direct Lordship of Christ?
  • The Priesthood of all believers?
  • Congregational life?
  • The Authority and Sufficiency of the Bible?
  • The priority of Verbal Proclamation in worship and service?
  • Regenerate church membership?
  • Separation of church and State?
  • The two Ordinances?
  • The Autonomy of the local church?
  • Freedom of Conscience?
Christo Beetge Brackenhurst Baptist Church

* An article, written by Christo Beetge, and published in 5 parts in the Brackenhurst Baptist Church’s monthly in-house publication entitled Pastors’ Pen. This publication is produced by the Elders, with a view to stimulate congregational discussion and debate and to promote rigorous Christian discipline in reading and thinking.

<— Click here for Part 6

Going Dotty (Part 6)


<— Click here for Part 5

Thanks to all the flesh and blood people who’ve phoned, emailed and chatted to me in the last few weeks regarding my “slow slide off the face of the earth”. I’ve taken a bit of a “blogging sabbatical” brought on by a decision faced by my wife and I regarding our involvement in the establishment of God’s kingdom. Truthfully I’ve been a bit too introspective to produce anything of any literary value of late. Thanks for your patience. God willing I’ll be back soon. Until then: this article was written by Christo Beetge*. There’s only one more installment to go!

More and more it seems to be the case today that people who call themselves “Baptists” or “Methodists” or “Presbyterians” are unable to define what they mean when using such specific terminology. This confusion and historical ignorance reveals itself further in the fact that people seem to be unclear as to the differences between these various ecclesiastical groupings. This means that if I were to say in conversation that my roots lie in the “Brethren Church” or the “Church of the Nazarene” (for example), it is unlikely that I would actually have communicated anything meaningful by saying so.

More and more people are keen to believe that being a “Christian” is all that matters, and that we should not bother to define our terms. A moment’s thought would reveal the folly of such simplicity. Even the word “Christian” is a technical term, laden with some freight. If you want to communicate something by using the term then you need to answer the question, “But what do you mean by calling yourself a… (Christian, Baptist, Methodist, etc)”. It is to help bring some clarity to the term “Baptist” that this series of articles has been written. These articles have sought then to answer the very reasonable question, “What freight is implied by the term ‘Baptist’?”

Thus far eight issues have been raised. I have argued historically that Baptists are a peculiar group of believers who hold in common a commitment to a bouquet of convictions called ‘Baptist Principles’. To this point we have mentioned and briefly discussed the following:

  • The Direct Lordship of Jesus Christ – every believer must by definition have a direct and unmediated relationship with God the Father by means of the Person and work of God the Son;
  • The Priesthood of all Believers – every believer is a priest unto God;
  • The Congregational Life – because every individual believer has this direct access to God through Christ and is enabled by the indwelling Spirit to be a priest unto God, such members have the right and the responsibility to participate constructively and definitively in the life of the local congregation;
  • The Authority and Sufficiency of the Bible – all matters of Faith and practise must be regulated and shaped by direct reference to the written Word which God has inspired, inscripturated and preserved for our eternal good;
  • The Priority of Verbal Proclamation in worship and service – since saving faith comes from hearing the Word of God, our activities in mission, evangelism and discipleship must be heavily centered upon verbal proclamation and application of all of Scripture;
  • Regenerate Church Membership – only those who are willing to make a credible profession of faith in Jesus Christ and who engage in good works may be considered as members of a local church;
  • Separation of Church and State – the authority of civil authorities is limited to civil matters, and must not encroach upon the authority of parents in the home nor on the authority of believers in the local church;
  • The Two Ordinances – only two ceremonies were ordered by the Head of the Church, the Lord Jesus Christ, namely baptism of confessors in Christ by immersion in water, and the eating of the Lord’s Supper as an act of remembrance in which Christ Jesus is present.

Before we mention one further Baptist Principle here (leaving a final one for the fifth and concluding article in this series), let it be stated again plainly, that all Christians, by definition, will hold to a selection of the above convictions. None of these principles is unique to those who use the name “Baptist”. But what is unique is that Baptists, by definition, hold to all ten of these principles, and these convictions shape local Baptist churches and flavour their ethos and approach.

Furthermore, let it also be stated again, that the word “Baptist” is not a political or denominational designation. It is possible to be authentically ‘baptistic’ without actually using the word “Baptist” in your churches name. Too many people seem to think that you can only be a “Baptist” church if you belong to some formal grouping like the Baptist Union, or some grouping of that kind.

Well, now to the ninth Baptist Principle. Although baptistic churches, emphasising as they do the significance of the local church, have emphasized inter-dependence and sought not to be isolationist or sectarian in their independence, we none the less want to remain committed to the idea of autonomy. By the notion designated by the phrase, “the autonomy of the local church”, Baptists certainly do not want to suggest that one local church has absolutely no need of other like-minded Baptist churches.

In fact, this inter-dependence is the very reality that lies behind co-operative associations like the Sola 5 family. It is simply a logical fact of economy and limited resources that means that in order to be productively engaged in world missions and theological education, each local church will need to pool its limited resources with those of other like-minded congregations. But, (and here’s the point), this associating of ourselves together for the purpose of greater strategic involvement in missions and training, must not be allowed to develop into some ecclesiastical structure that will ultimately supersede the local church in authority.

To put it plainly: There is no “Head Office” to which the local “branch” like BBC is accountable. Or to state it slightly differently: When BBC gathers as an assembly of formal members and God is present by His Spirit, then there exists no higher ecclesiastical authority on earth! The pope of Rome is only head of the Roman Catholic Church – He has absolutely no authority outside of the his ecclesiastical structure.

Thoughtful readers will immediately see the significance of the issue discussed last time, under the heading “Separation of Church and State”. No one has the right, according to the baptistic understanding of God’s delegated authority to the local church and her office-bearers, to interfere in our local church affairs. The reason for this is that we simply do not see anywhere in Scripture that there is another strata of authority under which the local church falls.

Two Scripture issues immediately bear mentioning. The first is the fact that the seven letters in Revelation 2-3 were addressed not to the organization but to seven individual local churches. These local churches were recognised by God the Spirit as separate entities. They had specific strengths and weaknesses and needed individual attention by their ever-present Lord and Master. They were “the seven churches in Asia”, not “the church in Asia”.

The second Scripture issue is the church Council convened at Jerusalem in Acts 15. Many local churches in the various regions to which the gospel had spread were facing a common threat from Judaizers (i.e. those believers of Jewish origin who wanted to impose certain Jewish practices upon new converts to Christ). This matter was referred back to the gathered apostles in Jerusalem. The question then, is this: “Does Acts 15 not run counter to our baptistic conviction regarding autonomy?”

Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian synods, for instance, would argue against Baptists on this matter, suggesting that there is indeed a layer of authority that supersedes the local church. Baptists would hold rather that the Jerusalem Council is an example of co-operation for the sake of clarity, involving a unique group of Apostles. Today, we have the completed canon of Scripture (rather than the authoritative office of “apostle”). Whilst a gathering of spiritually mature representatives from various local congregations (such as their Elders) may benefit each local church by applying their collective wisdom to a matter, they may not impose their will on any local congregation. Rather than hierarchical structures, Baptists delight in the promise of the Lord Jesus that “where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I am in the midst of them” (Matt 18:20).

Baptists feel very strongly that the emphasis should be kept at the level of the local church acting as a body with the unmediated wisdom and direction of the Holy Spirit. Christ is the Head of the Church and will direct affairs in local churches by means of the Spirit through the agency of the written Word. (I trust that increasingly it is becoming clearer how inter-woven the logical connection is between these various Principles?)

Having raised these issues of conviction then, again the question must be asked: “Are you a Baptist? Or do you just happen to worship at a church with that name?

Christo Beetge Brackenhurst Baptist Church

* An article, written by Christo Beetge, and published in 5 parts in the Brackenhurst Baptist Church’s monthly in-house publication entitled Pastors’ Pen. This publication is produced by the Elders, with a view to stimulate congregational discussion and debate and to promote rigorous Christian discipline in reading and thinking.

<— Click here for Part 5

Going Dotty (Part 5)


<— Click here for Part 4 Click here for Part 6 —>

Figure 1: The Great Big Blue Dot. Click here to link to Part 1.

So I’ve started to think seriously about what it means to me being a Baptist. While I was unpacking some concepts in my mind I came across this article by Christo Beetge*. If you’re coming in late I’d suggest you back up to the first post and start at the beginning.

Parenthood is a shocking revelation of self – especially when it comes to being the parent of a “teenager”! Every honest adult can recall that season in life when you “needed to find yourself”, when you needed to see just where you fit in. So you experimented for a while with your hairstyle (on your head and on your face, if you’re male!) and your dress-code, until you felt comfortable with your “image”. Parents of children in their teens can be patient then, knowing that self-understanding, being able to describe yourself and appreciate how you arrived at where you are, is certainly an important component of settledness and contentment. The same is true of your doctrinal identity. Part of Christian maturity is knowing what you believe, why you believe it and how you came to those convictions.

So far in the previous [articles] in this series we have sought to appreciate Baptist identity in terms of certain convictions that are held in common with other believers. To this point we have concluded that most Christians generally are committed to notions such as: salvation being a direct relationship with God through the person of the Lord Jesus Christ; the priesthood of all believers; congregational involvement in the life of the local church; the authority and sufficiency of Scripture; and, the vital necessity of the verbal proclamation of truth (in the form of preaching, personal evangelism and discipleship) in the expansion of Christ’s Kingdom.

We have been at pains to point out that the word ‘Baptist’ is not primarily a denominational word, nor a sectarian label, but rather a theological and historical designation given to those believers who uniquely hold to all of these convictions mentioned thus far. How easy it is to lose sight of the tragic reality that each of these convictions have been hammered out on the anvil of persecution and ecclesiastical debate, and that many of those who wore the name ‘Baptist’ before us, or who preferred some other designation whilst holding to these ‘baptistic’ convictions, did so at great cost to themselves, even to the point of shedding their own blood! How helpful the reading of Church history is in reminding us that, outwardly, from a human vantage point, the visible Church is not a homogenous group! We need to know where we fit and how we came to be there, so that we can appreciate true unity when we experience it.

In addition to the five issues mentioned thus far, let’s add three more: the importance of a regenerate church; the relationship between the Church and the State; and, the ordinances. When the question is asked, “Who ought rightly to belong to the church?”, not all believers will give the same answer. Roman Catholics will say, “All those who are baptised as infants belong to the church”. Those from a Lutheran or other Episcopal tradition will argue that the issue is essentially geographical – “All people who live in a certain area belong to a certain local church.” But to this question, Baptists shy away from an institutional view of the church, favouring an understanding of the local church as an organic body or a family.

Baptists are persuaded that the Bible forces us to view the church from God’s perspective, saying that the local church consists only of those who have a relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptists appreciate the biblical image of a vine in which the sap nourishes all the individual branches. Someone is part of the visible church because he or she has been translated miraculously by God from being in the kingdom of darkness into being part of the kingdom of light.

Baptists are realistic enough though, to realise that for now, despite our best efforts at discernment of spiritual identity, the flock of God will consist of both sheep and goats; or to change the metaphor, the field of God will contain both wheat and tares. But precisely because of the practical outworking of convictions mentioned in parts 1 and 2 of this series of articles, Baptists are Christians who are persuaded that when it comes to membership of the local church, humble spiritual discernment is called for. Not everyone who applies may rightly be admitted to membership of the local church. The issue must be decided upon from God’s perspective, as far as that is humanly possible. To put it simply: Baptists are willing to ask applicants for church membership, “Are you converted? Have you been born again? Are you a new creation in Christ?” Spiritual business must be conducted only by spiritual people.

Regarding our second issue, we can say that Baptists are people who acknowledge that God has ordained the exercise of His delegated authority in three distinct spheres in the world: the family, the local church and the State. Clearly, these three spheres of authority must all be appreciated with a view towards God’s glory.

The family involves marriage, parenthood and the rearing of children, all to the glory of God. The church involves the formal worship of God and the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry. The State is responsible for the ordered management of society according to the dictates of civil law. Baptists are Christians who believe that these three spheres of authority should not interfere with each other. Whilst the first two, the family unit (or the home) and the local church, obviously have a large degree of overlap and inter-dependence, they have unique areas of responsibility.

Historically, Baptists have wanted to defend the local church from interference in her affairs from the civil government, precisely because we do not see a similar degree of overlap or inter-dependence between the local church and the State. We give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and we give to God what belongs to God. It is simply not the prerogative of the State, therefore to regulate and organise matters that clearly lie within the realm of the local church. So, for instance, some Baptists ministers have refused to be marriage officers, precisely because they do not want, simultaneously, to be operating in the realm of the church and that of the State at a wedding ceremony.

Historically, Baptists have reacted against Lutherans and Roman Catholics who have apparently been happy to belong to a “state-sponsored church”.

Thirdly, Baptists have wanted to distance themselves from the Roman Catholic position regarding the ceremonies that Christ has instituted. Roman Catholics, and Anglicans and others, believe that Christ instituted as many as seven ‘sacraments’, or ceremonial transactions.

Whilst not all Baptists are necessarily opposed to the word ‘sacrament’, all Baptists are certainly (and even passionately) clear on the notion that Christ only commanded two specific ceremonies within general worship activity, namely the immersion of believers (or those confessing that they are believers) in water (known as ‘baptism’), and the Lord’s Supper (also referred to as ‘Communion’ or ‘the breaking of bread’ in some circles). Baptists often prefer to refer to these two ceremonies as ‘ordinances’, highlighting their institution by direct and explicit command of Christ.

It is not surprising that in the minds of almost all people calling themselves Christians, this issue of baptism (often erroneously referred to with the adjective ‘adult baptism’) has been the distinctive Baptistic conviction. Interestingly though, the point must be made that many believers who choose not to use the label ‘Baptist’ do none the less perform this ceremony of immersing confessing believers, whatever their age, in a pool of water. Here again the central point behind this series of articles must be re-iterated, namely that ‘Baptists’ are passionate and convinced about far more than simply the amount of water to be used in the baptism ceremony!

So, in summary, Baptists participate in only two prescribed ceremonies (Communion and Baptism); Baptists call for a credible profession of faith (and even water baptism) before admitting an applicant to membership; and, Baptists insist that the local church is not the realm where the State ought to exercise any direct authority.

Having raised these issues of conviction then, again the question must be asked: “Are you a Baptist? Or do you just happen to worship at a church with that name?”

Christo Beetge Brackenhurst Baptist Church

* An article, written by Christo Beetge, and published in 5 parts in the Brackenhurst Baptist Church’s monthly in-house publication entitled Pastors’ Pen. This publication is produced by the Elders, with a view to stimulate congregational discussion and debate and to promote rigorous Christian discipline in reading and thinking.

<— Click here for Part 4 Click here for Part 6 —>

The Great Big Blue Dot (Part 4)


<— Click here for Part 3 Click here for Part 5 —>

Figure 1: The Great Big Blue Dot. Click here to link to Part 1.

I’m a Baptist, Independant, but Baptist non the less. While considering what that means I came across Christo’s article and have been most edified by it. Below is the third installment. I’d suggest you begin where all good things start. Have you read Part 1? If not click here.

I’m sure we have all had those moments when we have been confronted by someone in such a way and in such a moment of volatility, that we seriously wanted to “punch their lights out” (or take some equally drastic punitive measure!). I remember one such experience. I was a seminary student, and a friend from a rival “theological camp” (anyone who has been to seminary knows that such “camps” indeed exist!) came up to me and asked me in a seemingly innocent tone of voice, “Christo, are you Reformed?” Of course, it was a set-up and I walked right into the trap. I said, “Yes, I am”. To which this guy replied, “Well, how do you do – I’m a Christian“. What was infuriating in the extreme was the implied accusation that some people are so “doctrinally sensitive” that their Christianity is supposedly concealed behind whatever particular banner they are waving. It is this kind of implication that lies behind the claim, made by some believers, that they need “no creed but the Bible”. They are suggesting that they are so balanced and mature in the Faith that they need no supplementary summary of doctrinal truth in addition to the Scriptures. It is these very issues that come up when we begin to discuss and define theological terms such as “Baptist”. Some people immediately want to respond by saying, “Don’t confuse me with such terminology – I’m just a plain Christian”, as if anyone wanting to discuss terms such as “Baptist” is just being obscurantist and sectarian.

In the previous [post], we examined the first part of this discussion regarding convictions that are peculiarly Baptistic. We made the point, and probably need to keep reiterating it, that such a discussion is not in the realm of “denominational politics”. The term ‘Baptist’, as we are using it in this series of articles, is first and foremost a theological term, as is the word ‘Christian’. In the same way that using the word ‘Christian’ implies a certain set of intellectual facts, so too, the use of the word ‘Baptist’ implies certain things, historically. In this series of articles we are simply seeking to be informed believers who understand what particular content lies behind the historical label given to some Christians.

Not all believers are the same in their values and practises. Methodists differ in material ways from Presbyterians or Anglicans. It is vital therefore, that if we feel convinced about certain truths, and these are associated historically with a certain group, that we must then understand and appreciate that freight. Not that we need to be strident or aggressive in this endeavour. We certainly don’t want to breed a sectarian spirit. We want a Christ-like humility to be the very fibre from which our theological garments are woven. But none the less, as a church family we do wear a Baptistic uniform, as opposed to the strip of any other religious group, and we need to be informed. Ignorance is seldom a virtue!

Thus far we have examined the conviction that the Bible speaks of salvation as involving the direct personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Each word in this previous sentence is vital and necessary, because not all people who use the word “Christian” believe in such a direct or personal relationship. We went further and explained the issue that is commonly known as “the priesthood of all believers”. This conviction too, whilst shared by many “Christians”, is certainly not applicable to all. Roman Catholics for instance, believe in the vital necessity of a class of designated, vocational go-betweens, called ‘priests’. Related to this topic, we looked in the third place at the issue of congregational involvement in the decision-making and life of the local church. I trust that we all appreciate the vitally important implied connection between and inter-relatedness of these three convictions? Those who themselves enjoy a direct personal relationship with God through the mediating work of Jesus Christ, want to be intimately involved as priests in the work of the Kingdom, and want to take direct responsibility and be held accountable by fellow-priests who likewise enjoy this direct relationship with God.

In this second article, to the “direct Lordship”, the “priesthood of all believers”, and the “congregational involvement”, let us add now the following two additional Baptistic convictions: the Authority (and sufficiency) of Scripture; and, our commitment to the Proclamation of truth in the expansion of Christ’s Kingdom.

If we assumed that all people who are willing to wear the name “Christian” are as committed as we are to the notion that God’s written Word in its 66 books is authoritative and sufficient for all matters of faith and practise – then we would be woefully mistaken! Ideas regarding additional fresh revelation, cultural adaption and the need for contemporary relevance have infected large swathes of Protestantism. Even people who would call themselves ‘Evangelical’ have taken on board to some degree these notions that suggest or openly teach that the Bible is an outmoded book.

Baptists want to insist, however, that God has spoken, and that this self-revelation is encapsulated in written form in what we have today as the Bible, comprising 39 Old Testament books and 27 New Testament books. Jesus Christ, is revealed by the Spirit, and saving faith in Him is created in us by the Spirit, only as this written word is proclaimed with authority in the hearing of people. Baptists want to insist that all of this written revelation is both authoritative and sufficient to impart to us all that God intends for us to know about salvation and a relationship with Him. Baptists are therefore not interested in dreams and revelations and so-called “fresh light” which various people apparently receive by dramatic means and want to impress us with. Baptists are people of the book! This means that our motivation for everything in life – in society, in the home and in the local church – is governed and shaped by reference to this Book. The Bible is our final court of appeal. Our public worship is dominated by our proclamation of this written Word, as well as our singing of the Word, our reading of the Word and our praying of the Word.

Baptists are happy to be ridiculed by others who feel that there ought to be more innovation, more variety, more originality than they see in our public and private worship. We realise that if God had not revealed Himself, we would be hopelessly lost creatures. Our need is so dire, and God’s grace so remedial, that we must stick closely to God’s Word, the Bible. Baptists are therefore happy to debate issues regarding the interpretation of this written Word, and are happy to commit time to reading and memorization of Scripture.

Closely allied to this issue is the fact that Baptists focus their energy and hope in worship and in mission on the verbal proclamation of this written revelation. Baptist pastors are first and foremost preachers and teachers of God’s Word. These pastors feel keenly the weight of responsibility to faithfully expound (open up, unpack and apply) the Bible. Visit a selection of ten different churches in any community, and the chances are that in the vast majority of those churches the person leading the service will not give primary attention to the Word. Other activities will dominate. And where monologue proclamation happens, the subject will not clearly and obviously be the Sacred Text. Sadly, this issue is not prevalent in all churches that call themselves ‘Baptist’. Even these have fallen prey to the need for some notion of “contemporary relevance”.

Churches that are self-consciously Baptistic, are organised around the Bible. Youth activities, Sunday school, Lord’s Day worship, discipleship, fellowship – these activities are all governed and dominated by the content of the Bible.

Baptists pastors view themselves as “physicians of souls” (to use a Puritan phrase), but they see the proclamation of the Word as the central element of this ministry. Issues of institutional and organisational involvement, companionship and helpfulness are viewed by Baptists as secondary responsibilities of the Pastor. Indeed, Baptist pastors take seriously their responsibility from Eph 4 to be involved in prayer and the ministry of the Word so as to prepare God’s people rather for works of service.

Baptists would go even further and say that whilst the local church ought to “get its hand dirty” in social involvement and the meeting of practical needs, our greatest contribution to people and our greatest expression of love for people, is the impartation of divinely revealed truth – truth that centers on the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Because of these convictions, Baptists are willing to contend for such revealed truth, and protect it. This is done partly by means of the formulation of Creeds and Confessions. These historic documents are designed and intended to stand not between us and the Bible, but between us and the world.

True Baptists are committed to the Bible and the shaping, life-imparting truth that is enscripturated between its covers!

Again the question must be asked: “Are you a Baptist?”

Christo Beetge Brackenhurst Baptist Church

* An article, written by Christo Beetge, and published in 5 parts in the Brackenhurst Baptist Church’s monthly in-house publication entitled Pastors’ Pen. This publication is produced by the Elders, with a view to stimulate congregational discussion and debate and to promote rigorous Christian discipline in reading and thinking.

<— Click here for Part 3 Click here for Part 5 —>

The Great Big Blue Dot (Part 3)


<— Click here for Part 2 Click here for Part 4 —>

Figure 1: The Great Big Blue Dot. Click here to link to Part 1.

Have you read Part 1? If not click here.

Baptists are amongst those who would be so brazen (some opponents would unfairly say “opinionated” or “arrogant”) as to say, “If you understood the Bible the way we understand it, then you too would be a Baptist”. We would like to utter such sentiments with genuine humility – we do not think we have arrived. The reality simply is that whilst we are happy to have fellowship with Christians of another stripe, we ought to be Baptists by conviction. Yes I know – in post-modern ears that phrase does not sit well. We live in an age where all “convictions” are at more accurately understood to be “temporary persuasions”. The reality is, that even if you were oblivious to this fact up to this point, be well aware of it now – the word ["Baptist"], carries some freight – it has some weighty practical significance.

Of course, for some Christians, and even for some Baptists, the term “Baptist” causes some irritation and rankle. Maybe it would help if we gave the assurance that our purpose in even discussing the term and its meaning is with a desire precisely to cut us loose from the misunderstanding that the word Baptist is a denominational word. No! The term ‘Baptist’ is first and foremost a theological designation – and for that reason we submit to every educational endeavour that will enable us to understand this word and appreciate its use.

[allow me lay out some of the angles]. Let me briefly explain some of these distinctive Baptistic convictions – see where you stand on the issues raised.

Baptists are a unique group of believers in that historically they alone have held, and continue to hold, to a cluster of ten defining convictions. Many other believers share some or many of these convictions with us, but only Baptists hold to all ten. In this and the [following articles], we plan to examine these convictions, and in the final article will attempt to demonstrate how these various convictions strengthen and under-gird each other.

The first and most significant Baptist conviction is that the New Testament teaches the necessity of a direct relationship with God through the person of Jesus Christ. Repeatedly Jesus is given the title “Lord”. This is appropriate because He alone is our Master. We can only be reconciled to the Father, and we can only receive the Spirit, if Jesus Christ alone is trusted and embraced as our Advocate, our only Mediator, our Substitute, our elder Brother, our Friend. And this faith-relationship is a direct one. In other words, the Lordship and authority of Christ is not mediated to us, or exercised in our lives through an intermediary, such as our parents, or a human priest-figure. Between us and the Father stands one Man, Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5-6; Heb 9:15). Jesus Christ is the One sent by the Father to be our ultimate truth-revealing Prophet, and our ultimate self-sacrificing Priest, and our ultimate King who rules over us with justice. Baptists make no clergy-laity distinction. Together, both Pastors and non-pastors benefit from the direct Lordship of Jesus Christ as they relate to God the Father in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is because of this conviction that Baptists make much of words and phrases such as “conversion”, “the new birth”, “born again” – because without such an experience this direct relationship with God the Father through the Person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is not possible!

Closely related to this conviction is the persuasion that as believers in Jesus Christ, we are all priests unto God. The New Testament images of the church, such as “the body of Christ” (Rom 12:3-8; 1 Cor 12:12-31), affirm identity of status, though differentiation of function, for all believers. The “Great Commission” is addressed to all believers. Paul envisages all of God’s people being prepared for works of service in Eph 4:12. All believers are indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, and so Peter can be emphatic in saying, “But you (plural!) are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for His own possession, that you may proclaim the excellence of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.” (1 Pet 2:9). All converted sinners, whose hope for eternity is centered in Christ alone, have a certain dignity of status and a significance of function – we are all priests serving God!

This directness of relationship and this status and significance before God lead naturally to a third conviction, namely that we all have a constructive, God-given role to play in the household of Faith. Although there are traces of other forms of church government (called ‘polity’ in theological discussion) in the New Testament, Baptists believe that the principle of congregational life emerges strongly and is most consistent with these aforementioned convictions. God has designated and equipped some to perform the role, and fill the office of Elder in the congregation. This role carries with it tremendous responsibilities of authority and leadership. But such responsibilities are performed and exercised in an atmosphere of mutual submission between people who all stand before God. We see this dynamic in action in Acts 6:5-6, where the apostles initiated a strategy which was enforced by a decision taken by the whole church. So too, we see that the New Testament epistles are addressed to the whole church, not simply to its leaders. So, for example, church membership, disciple-making and discipline are all congregational affairs (Matt 18:17; 1 Cor 5:2-5; 2 Cor 2:4-6). Baptists are convinced from Scripture that the local church is a ‘theocracy’ (as opposed to a democracy on the one hand or dictatorship on the other) in which men designated to exercise authority are held accountable to the Word by the congregation before God. (Thoughtful Baptists cringe at the suggestion that this conviction is fairly referred to by the popular ecclesiastical phrase “congregational rule”. Christ rules the local congregation, by means of designated officers who are accountable to the gathered family) [editor: I'm cringing. Being an "elder rule" proponent I’m busy digesting this.]. So, Baptists believe that the whole congregation is responsible for determining and implementing the will of Christ.

Here then are the first three convictions which Baptists are persuaded by. Yes, we need to say it again: There are obviously other Christians who do not use the name “Baptist”, but who none the less also hold to and live by, to a greater or lesser extent – the direct Lordship of Christ, the priesthood of all believers, and congregational accountability. But, what will become clearer as we examine further Baptistic convictions in subsequent articles, is that we are unique in being persuaded about all of these inter-linked convictions, as a package-deal!

But what does all this mean practically? It means, that Baptists are involved people. Baptists are not passive “church-attenders”, simply coming in and going out as clinically as possible. No, Baptists are thinkers, students of the Word, prepared to administer truth to each other and to unbelievers. Baptists care passionately about the local church and its witness in the community.

What’s the verdict then – are you a Baptist? Or do you simply happen to worship God at a “Baptist” church?

Christo Beetge Brackenhurst Baptist Church

* An article, written by Christo Beetge, and published in 5 parts in the Brackenhurst Baptist Church’s monthly in-house publication entitled Pastors’ Pen. This publication is produced by the Elders, with a view to stimulate congregational discussion and debate and to promote rigorous Christian discipline in reading and thinking.

<— Click here for Part 2 Click here for Part 4 —>