Southern Baptist Q&A

[TigerShadow]

I don't know how much you guys would be interested, but here goes nothing!

Southern Baptist means different things to different people...including Southern Baptists. However, there are general doctrinal trends that most of us follow. I don't know all of the church history, but I do happen to have a respectable command of knowledge and a search engine at my disposal for any questions you may or may not have. Let's see if this thing works.

[Eleventh Doctor]

What does being a Southern Baptist mean to you?

What do you think about the Nicene Creed?

Do you practice open or closed communion?

[TigerShadow]

It more or less means that I identify as Southern Baptist because it's the denomination in which I was raised and it is the denomination that I still attend, and because I've seen the general doctrines of the SBC and agree with them on Scriptural grounds. I'm not averse to attending churches of other denominations, but only if their views are also sola Scriptura.

I don't really know a lot about the Nicene Creed, other than that the Council of Nicea was called in response to the wave of gnosticism that was spreading in some parts of the early church. I have read it, though, and I agree with it. Our church doesn't use the Nicene Creed much, though; we tend to use the Apostle's Creed.

We practice open communion; as long as that person is in good standing with their local church, we allow them to partake of the elements. The only real requirement to take communion is that the person be a Christian who has been subsequently baptized; this is not because we believe that baptism saves, but rather because baptism is a public profession of faith, and a person has to be willing to make that public declaration before they can partake in communion.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Why do you place such an emphasis on Sola Scriptura?

Could a Catholic take communion with you?

[TigerShadow]

(I would have gotten to this sooner, but I never had any down time until just now to do it.)

Scripture is the Word of God. If it isn't sufficient and solely authoritative in the matter of determining doctrine and lifestyle, what's the point of it? If a church teaches things that contradict the Bible, either adding to it or taking away from it, then I will not yoke myself with them because they are teaching something morally unsound. My own pastor tells us constantly to read the Bible for ourselves to see if the things he teaches match with what Scripture says. (That of course does not mean that we cannot consult external commentaries; on the contrary, we should in order to grow in our understanding. We do not, however, take any of those commentaries to be authoritative, nor do we consider any other writing that isn't Scripture to be God's word.)

If they are members in good standing with their local church, then yes. I should have elaborated on the baptism point—our church requires that you be baptized if you want to join our church long-term. If, say, you're a Catholic who is just visiting the church on a day when we happen to be taking communion, then you may partake with or without believer's baptism.

[Eleventh Doctor]

How was the Protestant Scriptural Canon arrived at?

So if a person who had been baptized as an infant in another denomination wanted to join your church long term they would have to be baptized again?

[Tea Ess]

What would you say makes a Southern Baptist church different from a Baptist one? (I'm sure you didn't anticipate that question. )

Is it true that Southern Baptists have the best potlucks?

[GabrielleFandomGirl]

What would you say makes a Southern Baptist church different from a Baptist one? (I'm sure you didn't anticipate that question. )

Is it true that Southern Baptists have the best potlucks?

I feel like southern babtist churches do have a different feel, the people, and the general way they work. Not exactly doctrinal, just a vibe you get. I go to a southern Babtist youth group myself and I enjoy it very much

[jehoshaphat]

Is Sola Sciptura supported in scripture?

I would request Good Doctor that you stop asking if a Catholic could recieve communion in a different protestants church. The things is that no good standing Catholic who knows even the basics of his faith and the belief we hold would never take communion in a non-Catholic denomination. It would violate our love for the Eucharist.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Would the Catholic offer communion to an Orthodox?

I realize that is the stance Roman Catholics take, it is one shared by Orthodox. The question is not meant for Roman Catholic, it is to gauge the Protestants acceptance of Roman Catholics as Christians.

[TigerShadow]

This isn't an answer post, just a quick note—I will get to these, I promise! They're good questions, and I'm not ignoring them. I'm just unexpectedly busy at the moment with homework and such. I know that no one is really waiting with bated breath for my theological layperson answers, but I just thought I'd post this in the interest of full disclosure.

[John Henry]

Question: Do the Southern Baptist Denomination have something to do with the Bible Belt? Is it the most conservative?

[TigerShadow]

How was the Protestant Scriptural Canon arrived at?

It is my understanding (a caveat as much as it is a qualifier) that the Protestant Old Testament was arrived at by accepting those books which were considered canon by Jewish priests pre-Christ's arrival—in other words, the Tanakh—and the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox New Testament. The reasons for not accepting those books outside of the Tanakh vary, the most common being that the books were determined not to have been divinely inspired (owing to the 400 years of silence accepted by both Jewish and Christian theologians; anything following Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi is not accepted as divinely inspired because of the belief that God did not speak to His people during the intervening years between the aforementioned prophets and Jesus's birth); the Roman Catholic New Testament is considered canon because the books in it have been determined to be of genuine, divinely-inspired apostolic origin.

So if a person who had been baptized as an infant in another denomination wanted to join your church long term they would have to be baptized again?

Yes. The Southern Baptist Church does not accept infant baptism.

What would you say makes a Southern Baptist church different from a Baptist one? (I'm sure you didn't anticipate that question. )

Our football teams are in the SEC instead of the Big Ten.

Actually, there are several different Baptist denominations; the principle unifying point for Baptists is that we believe in baptism only for the believer, sola fide, sola scriptura, and soul competency (that individuals are viewed in light of their merits in terms of salvation, not in light of their families or their denominations). I would say that the principle difference is that we tend to be more conservative, such as on the role of women (we don't accept women in the pastorate, though we do accept women in church and convention leadership) and on salvation—the SBC is overall Calvinistic in its thinking. The Southern Baptist Convention also takes a harder line on homosexuality, that it is not an acceptable lifestyle, than other Baptist denominations, and it is more steadfast in the belief that one must accept Jesus Christ as their personal Savior.

Is it true that Southern Baptists have the best potlucks?

Probably. We do, after all, have Southern fried food.

Is Sola Sciptura supported in scripture?

The doctrine of sola scriptura essentially states that Scripture is the final authority for doctrine, and that one can derive doctrine not only by enumeration in Scripture, but also implication in Scripture. For one thing, Paul states in 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for the believer's edification, and that through it one is "competent, equipped for every good work"; from that I think it is reasonable to conclude that Scripture is all that is necessary for living a Godly life as a believer. Not only that, but Scripture states that God is all-sustaining, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and that all Scripture is breathed from Him, and so I think it is a logical deduction from Scripture that it is all that is necessary for determining doctrine.

The question is not meant for Roman Catholic, it is to gauge the Protestants acceptance of Roman Catholics as Christians.

I cannot determine a person's salvation if they identify as Catholic any more than if they identify as Protestant. It is not my place to judge someone's salvation; that is between them and God. I think all people who believe and trust in the Gospel of Christ are Christians, but again, that's not my categorical, objective call.

I do not, however, think that being Catholic or Eastern Orthodox automatically makes one a non-believer, just as I do not believe that being a Protestant makes one a believer. (Which is why I find the title of the thread "Christian vs. Catholic" to be complete nonsense, due to the implication that the two are somehow at odds, but I didn't say anything because I figured that it had already been said.)

Question: Do the Southern Baptist Denomination have something to do with the Bible Belt? Is it the most conservative?

I wouldn't say that we're the most conservative, but we are a conservative denomination and, as the name implies, the church is concentrated in the Southeastern United States, colloquially known as the Bible Belt.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I have heard of this 400 years of silence before, do you know where that belief came from?

On the issue of soul competency, what is the reason for the community of the Church if each only the individual is responsible for his salvation? Is it only for teaching?

[jehoshaphat]

Is Sola Sciptura supported in scripture?

The doctrine of sola scriptura essentially states that Scripture is the final authority for doctrine, and that one can derive doctrine not only by enumeration in Scripture, but also implication in Scripture. For one thing, Paul states in 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 that all Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for the believer's edification, and that through it one is "competent, equipped for every good work"; from that I think it is reasonable to conclude that Scripture is all that is necessary for living a Godly life as a believer. Not only that, but Scripture states that God is all-sustaining, all-knowing, and all-powerful, and that all Scripture is breathed from Him, and so I think it is a logical deduction from Scripture that it is all that is necessary for determining doctrine.

But tradition is also supported in the Bible. It is supported way more than Sola Scriptura. It is through tradition that we are able to say that Scripture is divinely inspired and what is in the canon of scripture. Also you can't take something from itself to prove something about it. It is a logical fallacy. You say that the Bible says that it is divinely inspired so therefore it is. You have to have an outside source to prove infallibility.

[Pound Foolish]

It is my understanding (a caveat as much as it is a qualifier) that the Protestant Old Testament was arrived at by accepting those books which were considered canon by Jewish priests pre-Christ's arrival—in other words, the Tanakh—and the Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox New Testament. The reasons for not accepting those books outside of the Tanakh vary, the most common being that the books were determined not to have been divinely inspired (owing to the 400 years of silence accepted by both Jewish and Christian theologians; anything following Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi is not accepted as divinely inspired because of the belief that God did not speak to His people during the intervening years between the aforementioned prophets and Jesus's birth); the Roman Catholic New Testament is considered canon because the books in it have been determined to be of genuine, divinely-inspired apostolic origin.

Could you please expound? How can your canon be the Jewish one? Jews by definition don't exactly believe in Jesus. I misunderstood you somewhere rather badly.

[Eleventh Doctor]

She means the Old Testament canon.

[Pound Foolish]

Alrighty then. But Tiger, where do you get the full, entire canon? You say it's the Catholic canon "has been determined genuine, divinely inspired." But I'm still lost. Who determined that?