SBC's statement of faith critique

The SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) has no dogmatic creed they go by technically. However, they do issue an official statement of faith called The Baptist Faith and Message. This statement of faith they state can be changed--and it is.

The old BFM made very strong statement about not doing unnecessary work on Sunday, whereas the new one of 2000 is far less vague and leaves it up to a persons conscience.

The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should include exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private. Activities on the Lord's Day should be commensurate with the Christian's conscience under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.--BF&M 2000, VIII. The Lord's Day                        

The first day of the week is the Lord's Day. It is a Christian institution for regular observance. It commemorates the resurrection of Christ from the dead and should be employed in exercises of worship and spiritual devotion, both public and private, and by refraining from worldly amusements, and resting from secular employments, work of necessity and mercy only being excepted..--BF&M 2000, VIII. The Lord's Day                        

 Constantly, the BFM affirms religious freedom, and states they believe in a separation of Church and State--probably because Baptist were rarely ever the majority in any government.  Despite this claim they SBC's BFM makes several statements where they encourage people to affect government--just as they do through resolutions. They've had a history of pushing against any use of alcohol, however, they claim a separation of church and state--despite their 1925 affirmation that they use "bread and wine" for the Lord's supper, which they changed in the 1963 to "fruit of the vine"--which refers actually to another cup at the Last Supper!

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The act is a symbol of our faith in a crucified, buried and risen Saviour. It is prerequisite to the privileges of a church relation and to the Lord's Supper, in which the members of the church, by the use of bread and wine, commemorate the dying love of Christ. --1925 Baptist Faith and Message, XIII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper                        

The Lord's Supper is a symbolic act of obedience whereby members of the church, through partaking of the bread and the fruit of the vine, memorialize the death of the Redeemer and anticipate His second coming.--1963/2000 Baptist Faith and Message,VII. Baptism and the Lord's Supper

They mention both their "ordinances" of baptism and the Lord's supper as "a symbolic act of obedience," they only unique thing they do is state baptism is by immersion, this down plays the Biblical view of baptism which according to Jesus in Mark 16:16 he who "believes and is baptized shall be saved," and St Peter in Acts 2:38 who teaches "repent and be baptized for the remission of sins." It is less than an "ordinance" which the bible never calls it--strangely they have a problem with the term "sacrament" when the term they use is not used either!  Baptism is something done to you through a minster by God Himself to wash away sin! Interestingly enough, the creed does not make an explicit mention of having to be "old enough" to be baptized, no direct mention of credo-baptism--which is THE DOCTRINE that separates the Baptists from others!

 Continuing, the fact is their idea of separation of church and state is--we do not get tax, you cannot enforce anything on us that we do not like, but we can push our Baptist values and morality on society as a whole:

Every Christian should seek to bring industry, government, and society as a whole under the sway of the principles of righteousness, truth, and brotherly  love. --XV. The Christian and the Social Order

Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. --XVII. Religious Liberty                        

 Though many of the SBC's moral views are good and unobjectionable, it still seems in consistent with their idea of separation of church and state--look at my page on alcohol and see how they rail against FDR for letting prohibition be undone with the 21st amendment!

 

The SBC webpage says their members range from Calvinist to Arminian, yet the SBC's Baptist Faith and Message seems to be very Calvinist on some points and Arminian on others. For example, they seem to affirm Once saved always saved/eternal security saying:

Election is the gracious purpose of God, according to which He regenerates, justifies, sanctifies, and glorifies sinners. It is consistent with the free agency of man, and comprehends all the means in connection with the end. It is the glorious display of God's sovereign goodness, and is infinitely wise, holy, and unchangeable. It excludes boasting and promotes humility. 

All true believers endure to the end. Those whom God has accepted in Christ, and sanctified by His Spirit, will never fall away from the state of grace, but shall persevere to the end. Believers may fall into sin through neglect and temptation, whereby they grieve the Spirit, impair their graces and comforts, and bring reproach on the cause of Christ and temporal judgments on themselves; yet they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.--2000 Baptist Faith and Message, V. God's Purpose of Grace                           

The first paragraph does not use the term "free will" but "free agency" a term the Mormons like too, perhaps the SBC is just keeping and old term or wants to avoid the free-will debate, either way generally you would not see this in a Reformed creed other than to negate it somehow, or define it in a very narrow way.  Then the second paragraph explicitly states they believe you cannot fall from a state of grace, but that graces can be "impair[ed]."   This section does not allow for a person to have faith for a time, but states they will persevere.

Notice also their statement on the Last Things is very nonspecific and agreeable to many non Baptists. No mention of a pre-tribulation rapture which is common among Baptists.

 

Infant Baptism in the Talmud

Today, I was in a room where Anticatholics, who are Reformed, in this case reformed Baptist, insisted infant baptism is completely without basis in ancient Israel, one of them even said Jewish Encyclopedia does not mention it, and he also alluded to the Talmud implying that it too does not teach infant baptism. I objected and said if a baby were part of the family of a "ger" a convert to Judaism--the child would be baptized. I showed them this website which states the procedures for a baby converting:

The conversion of a female infant or child according to Conservative and Orthodox practices only requires tevilah (immersion in a ritual bath called a mikveh). A male child also requires immersion in the mikveh. While parents might have trepidation about immersing a newborn completely in water, the supervising rabbi will facilitate the procedure with great care ensuring that the infant is safe during this momentary immersion.....A beit din, usually consisting of three rabbis, is convened for the immersion. Parents can enter the mikveh. If the children are old enough, they recite the needed prayers; if not, a rabbi does so for them. After the tevilah ceremony is completed, and a name chosen if one has not already been selected, the child is declared by the beit din to be Jewish.

Furthermore, I have found in the Talmud, which they requested I use, it states:

R. Jose stated, It happened at 'En Bol that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion  before her mother; and Rabbi stated, It once happened at Beth She'arim that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion  before her mother; and R. Joseph stated, It once happened at Pumbeditha that the infant was made to undergo ritual immersion  before her mother;  One can well understand the incidents spoken of by R. Joseph and Rabbi  since [immersion was necessary as a protection for] the terumah  of Palestine; but why was that necessary in the case spoken of by R. Joseph,  seeing that Samuel had laid down: The terumah of a country outside the Land of Israel is not forbidden unless [it came in contact] with a person whose uncleanness emanated from his body,  and this applies only to eating but not to contact?-- Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Niddah 32a

 As we see, this issue was not even one that Rabbis debated over, it was already accepted as a fact that babies were baptized, and why wouldn't they be, they can become ritually "unclean" like adults! 

What, however, of the following statement of Raba. 'If a pregnant gentile woman was converted, there is no need for her son to perform ritual immersion'.  Why is there no need for him to perform immersion?-- Babylonian Talmud: Tractate ‘Abodah Zarah57a

Note the discussion here is why SHOULDN'T a baby still in a mothers womb be subject to baptism after birth, the reason is because his mother while still pregnant converted(and assumedly was baptized) therefore making the child have no need for baptism in the Jewish mindset.

Also, Tractate Kethuboth11a discusses the conversion of minors, including ones less than "three years and one day old" and states "A minor proselyte is immersed by the direction of the court."

There are other sources too, but this should suffice for now.

Baptism's Role

The Catholic Church since ancient times taught the doctrine that baptism is the sacrament that results in a believer's regeneration (being born again). Many Protestants reject the historical and Biblical doctrine that Baptism regenerates a believer in Christ and saves them. Some Protestants called hyper-dispensationalists even deny that using water in baptism is for today! Many Protestants treat baptism as a purely symbolic ritual. Ironically, they are the same people that reject calling Christianity a 'religion' because they believe Christianity is not a religion of rituals, despite the fact baptism and Communion are rituals Christ instituted.

There are a few Protestants groups that still recognize the value of baptism and hold that it does in fact regenerate, they include, but are not necessarily limited to: Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists and some Pentecostals.

Before responding to the Protestants that believe baptism does not save, I will post several Scriptures showing the importance and value of baptism.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.--Mark 16:16

This verse clearly links baptism with the word "saved." However, in my experience Protestants will have 2 possible rebuttals to this: 1)the emphasis of Mark 16:16 is "belief," 2)this section is not part of the Bible.

To answer the first claim, to say the emphasis is 'belief' is just trying to ignore the fact baptism is even mentioned. This is more of a statement rather than a rebuttal. The fact is the sentence still reads "believers and is baptized will be saved." It does nothing to address the fact baptism is mentioned in connection to salvation.

The second claim is not very common since most Protestants still trust the KJV which includes this part of Mark 16. Once a Pentecostal minister told me this, then I later caught him quoting this same debated section of Scripture to lend support for speaking in tongues ie "speaking in new tongues" (Mark 16:!7). Even if, theoretically, this passage were an addition to Scripture, we do not rely solely on this passage to teach the importance of Baptism.

Now another verse that shows the role of baptism in salvation:

"Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."-Acts 2:38

Peter here is making repentance and baptism necessary for the forgiveness of sins. This verse is also very straightforward in stating baptism's necessity for the forgiveness of sins. In my experience there have been a few rebuttals to this. One is the ridiculous claim that is saying sins are "remitted" in the sense of a disease, and they may come back somehow. Another rebuttal is that the word eis means they have forgiveness because they repented and because they have forgiveness they can be baptized. The third claim is a more modern and extreme claim by hyperdispensationalists who assert that this was only for that time, and now we have a "dry baptism," since it was intended for Jews.

In response to the first claim, the word remission is found in some older bibles like the KJV and DRB, however, even then the word remission typically means forgiveness, in the Greek the word remission is also used in Mark 3:29 for the forgiveness of the eternal sin, for more on this see the question and answer page on question Q7.

In response to the second claim, the word eis typically means "into" or "for." Their repentance and baptism causes their sins to be forgiven. The word is used about 1865 times in the New Testament, almost all the occurrences means "into" or "for."

In response to the third claim, Dispensationalism is false because Paul himself baptized people with water in Acts 19, 1 Corinthians 1, and Gentiles who were not proselytes to Judaism were explicitly baptized with water in Acts 10 by St Peter's order. There is no reason to believe they stopped or intended to cease water baptism. Also, the Christian baptism is not the same baptism as St John the Baptist since his followers had to be rebaptized with a Christian baptism in Acts 19.