What is the Southern Baptist Convention?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- The Southern Baptist Convention (aka Great Commission Baptists) is the largest Baptist denomination in the world. This video discusses what they believe.
Chapters:
00:00 Denomination Name
00:18 Structure
01:23 State Conventions
02:49 Baptist Faith And Message
04:56 Major Doctrines
5:12 Ordinances: Baptism & Lord's Supper
07:23 Scripture
08:27 Creation & Evolution
09:27 Sin & Salvation
10:04 Calvinism & Arminianism
11:15 Sanctification
11:26 Charismatic Theology & Speaking in Tongues
12:47 Eschatology / End Times / Dispensationalism
14:39 Sexuality, Marriage & Divorce
16:33 Sanctity of Life
17:13 Worship Style
17:25 Alcohol
17:50 Tithing
18:25 Religious Liberty
18:39 Convention & President, Conservative Resurgence
20:13 Church Polity, Offices
20:47 Women in Ministry
21:40 Associations & Statistics
Your website is addictive. This is amazing. Absolutely every church review is a must.
A couple things have happened that are worth a note since I recorded this video. First, the latest SBC numbers are out, and it's a pretty big decline: www.tennessean.com/story/news/religion/2021/05/28/southern-baptist-convention-membership-drops-14th-year-row/7419455002/
Secondly, a very prominent SBC church has publicly ordained women. An official SBC response has not been made to this yet. www.washingtonpost.com/religion/2021/05/11/saddleback-ordain-women-sbc/
Edit 6/15/2021 - Ed Litton, the person in the center photo at 19:15 has been elected president of the SBC.
With so much progressive substiitional interpretation splitting churches why dont they just change the denominational name or change doctrine as opposed to changing interpretations and keeping the names .
I just can't grasp why new words can't be used for what they want to change into.so much Nihlism
@WarmPotato lol if undermining the interpretation of the constitution is called "living constitution " does that make these progressive spc "living Bible believers or living southern Baptist doctrine " ? Dont like the word and definition just re interpret it to fit your selfish human lifestyle 😆 like Abraham and Tara fled.
Substitutional theology has no place in it.
great videos so far, i've been watching these for months!!! :D
The work you put into making these videos is impressive. Very interesting stuff. 👍
This is an excellent video... Ive learned so much! Thank you
Thank you, Brother 🌹🌹🌹
Again brother. Great informative video on our SBC siblings.
Your resources have been invaluable in helping me begin selecting a church, thank you!
Your videos are so informative great job
Glad you like them! Thanks, Victoria.
Brother 🧉 this one is solid
Amen let Christ increase
This seems to be a great thing
Love your channel. As an atheist who love studying religious beliefs, your channel is a must!!
You did an outstanding job on the beliefs of the SBC. I'm a part of an SBC church and your video was spot on!
This guy is awesome! I’d be curious to do a video on the different Christian publishers and which denominations they’re tied to.
After hearing this video, I fell in love again with my denomination.
I’m Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and Kansas-Nebraska Southern Baptist Convention (KS-NE SBC).
I grew up Southern Baptist, and love those folks. They taught me to love Jesus and the Scriptures.
That said, there are two areas where I now disagree, and which I even found puzzling as a teenager. I describe them, below, in the hopes that someone SBC-affiliated can give me a good argument why I had it wrong, and perhaps didn't understand the more-supportable version of these SBC teachings, and was actually criticizing straw-men:
Area 1: Baptism Does Nothing, but the Mode Matters: For SBC churches, baptism, as an ordinance rather than a sacrament, in-and-of-itself does nothing other than signify via external proclamation a change God has already effected internally. Yet, it is obligatory to perform baptism by immersion, specifically; pouring over the head while standing waist-deep in the Jordan itself (y'know, like all the most ancient depictions of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist) would not count. (The logic behind this is that the Greek word "baptizo" always-and-everywhere, in every context, can only mean "to immerse.") I find immersion-baptism very fitting because of the "dying with Christ in His death, rising again in His resurrection" symbolism. But it's puzzling that this mode should be required even to join an SBC-affiliated church, which denies that baptism does or achieves anything supernatural. To me, that sounds like: "If you get baptized THIS way, nothing happens; but, if you get baptized THAT way, also, nothing happens."
That said, I asked for and received baptism twice in SBC churches, the first at age 8, and the second as a more-adult reaffirmation of my faith at age 13. Anabaptist tradition, indeed.
Area 2: Once Saved, Always Saved: My church was very much in the Charles Stanley/Dallas Theological Seminary tradition (although, to their credit, they consistently refused to be doctrinaire about end-times speculations). Even as a kid, though, I felt that the way "Once Saved, Always Saved" was formulated seemed to have badly-patched-up holes in it, rather than constituting an elegant whole.
What felt most like a badly-patched-up hole was: How does OSAS explain a man who comes to Christ as a teenager, confesses faith, gets baptized, starts being heavily involved in ministry, seems "on fire" for the Lord, leads others to Christ, helps establish various ministries, knows the Scriptures well, prays frequently...and then, in his forties, commits adultery, leaves his wife, takes up with the other woman for a while, and then eventually leaves that woman for another, and in the process gradually becomes agnostic, explores Eastern mysticism a bit, then lives functionally as an atheist for a few decades, and dies unrepentant?
I know of more than one such example along these lines, so this is very far from hypothetical.
The formulation of OSAS that I usually experienced started off saying, "Well, maybe he was never a real Christian to begin with." I would ask, "Do you mean, he was secretly but knowingly not a serious believer the whole time? Why deceive for so long?" ...which usually led to the reply, "No, he didn't KNOW he wasn't a serious Christian..." which led to the reply, "Okay, then, in what sense can anyone ever know, if one can be wrong about being saved for so many decades when all the evidence pointed the opposite direction? I mean part of OSAS is that our love-of-God and our good works are a response-of-gratitude for God's having saved us. But from this guy's perspective, all his many good works can now only be viewed as a response-of-gratitude for...what? For God having MAYBE saved him, but possibly not, with the truth of the matter being hidden until decades later? So all that love and gratitude the guy lived out in his Christian years was premised on his believing something false? If all of us are saved in such a way, how can we live in love and gratitude for something so fundamentally uncertain?"
Some folks actually cut through that tangled mess by saying, "No, EVEN THAT GUY is saved." But THAT seemed even weirder. I never felt like anyone resolved these issues.
There ya' go: My two childhood areas of contention and confusion.
I now don't hold OSAS, and hold a sacramental view of baptism. But, if my earlier confusion was due to not properly understanding the SBC doctrines, I'd be happy to find out what I'd gotten wrong. Fill me in, anyone, if you think I misunderstood what the SBC is saying about these issues!
I'm an independent Baptist, but I can try to help you on these. Our big thing is Sola scriptura, so nothing more or less than what's in the Bible. Our main differences between the SBC (to my knowledge) are regarding well, church independence, and stance on ecumenism.
The Bible shows that Baptism was and is an outward expression of salvation (an inward change) and should express a commitment to God and the Great Commission. It's necessary to show a church that one agrees with the Bible (nothing more or less) and that they know God has saved them.
As for the latter issue, the General Epistles, especially I John, show what a real Christian looks like and what false teachers (and unsaved people) look like. Someone in the scenario described could be one or the other, but a "fall from grace" does not indicate that they lost salvation, just that they stopped trusting, loving, and walking with God, or that they never did to begin with. God knows better than people like that whether they were truly saved or not, but if they repent, it's other Christians' responsibility to forgive them and restore them into fellowship.
Hope that helps
For me OSAS is the only salvation that makes sense, considering you never know when you will die. Should you die before you can repent for any sins committed since your last repentance, are you now condemned? This seems far too transactional, like you got an unpaid tab. But the truth is, your debt is paid for all time with the blood of Christ, and that’s the most beautiful thing I can imagine.
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's
1 Corinthians 6:20
my local SBC in gainesville florida did not mention requiring a formal membership for baptism and made it clear that its not a requirement for salvation. although i could understand the request for it, just to plug you in the community more. i would think those who want to get baptized would ask the same
I will add that knowledge runs a lot of minds, especially in the western world, so people could often believe that God is real, or be motivated by those ideas, yet not be grounded in their heart with a passion solely from their love of God. (Of course that’s easy to say, but it’s so prevalent).
This video coming out just before the National Convention in Nashville.
Nice presentation on the SBC - the denomination where I have had most of my church fellowship. At 7:17, 57% of sbc churches have the Lords Supper only quarterly. While the NT does not dictate the frequency, having the Lords Supper only 4 times a year out of 52 Sundays is very low considering we are commanded to partake of it as often as possible. Something to think about.
Catholics celebrate the Lord's Supper daily. It's pretty awesome.
As a reformed Christian the lords supper should be celebrated anytime you have community gatherings and eat with people. The whole reason people had these gatherings is to honor repentance in God. This should be a daily practice if you want to get bibical on it.
The amazing thing about Baptist churches is that you have a lot of freedom on deciding what you think about salvation and other things that aren't completely expressed in the bible
They sound confused 😕
@@dman7668No, they sound faithful.
The fact of the matter is that some parts of scripture have room for disagreement, and it is up to the individual to figure these things out. Your parents, your pastors, elders etc all have a part to play in showing you what is most likely correct, what they believe to be correct, but if you don't believe in, say, the universal requirement for pre-salvation forced "grace", aka the doctrines of grace/Calvinism, and instead you're swayed by traditional soteriology (that God can and does force some to follow Him, not all saved have been forcefully "elected" and instead chose to follow Christ), you have the freedom to disagree.
After all, do we follow Paul? Do we serve appolos? No, we are one church, regardless of disagreement on non-essentials.
Except how you’ll be baptized
Can you do a video on the Word of Faith movement and Word of Faith churches and beliefs? Thanks.
I heard a Southern Baptist speak. He pointed out the original SBC is very different from today's SBC. That true (his description) Southern Baptists are hard to find since being taken over by those running the church now.
love your videos! could you make one about sedevacantist Catholics?
The what?
@@honkimusmaximus7477 the unpope Catholic
@@immanuellth6071 Thanks!
The term comes from Latin _sede vacante_ meaning "seat vacant". The term is often formally applied during vacancies of papal and other offices. For example, from March 2019 to around May 2020, the title of Archbishop of Atlanta was officially _sede vacante_ , as the prior bishop was appointed Archbishop of Washington and they had to find a coming archbishop, eventually choosing the Bishop of Savannah.
In the Sedevacantist context, they believe there hasn't been any legitimate Pope since the 2nd Vatican Council. Depending on who you ask, some say Pius XII was the last valid pope; others say John XXIII. Some probably say Paul VI. But the cutoff point is usually the Council.
@@honkimusmaximus7477 They are break off Catholics, who do not consider the current papacy to be legitimate. Mel Gibson is a prominent member of such a group.
Good overview. I am wondering if you are considering a video on Missionary Baptists? Here in Tennessee where I now live, there are a lot of Missionary Baptist Churches, but I'm not sure what the real difference is from the SBC, which is also quite common. I grew up in the Conservative Baptist Association in Massachusetts, so many of these things are a curiosity to me. Thanks so much.
Which orginazation? There are a ton.
@@Mulerider4Life More than one Missionary Baptist organization? That would be part of the video explanation I guess, eh?
Hey, my church in Massachusetts is also Conservative Baptist :)
What town city is your church in and how's it doing?
@@XSquibX I now live in Tennessee and the church that we attended back in the day was Central Baptist Church in Middleborough, MA. It dissolved a number of years ago. It has now become a non-denominational church called "The Meetinghouse Church".
@@TheShadeTreeFixitMan Hopefully still a solid church. The church I've gone to my whole life... is not doing well... Things have really taken a turn downhill in the last 2 years =/ Hopefully God can turn the church around or use whatever happens for good.
First let me say you are a very knowledgeable young man and I appreciate your expertise on all the different denominations. I do have one question though and that is why would a church join the SBC since there is such diversity in what they believe.
There is diversity, however, there are several non-negotiables. The primary purpose of affiliating with the Southern Baptist Convention is for cooperative mission work, supporting six seminaries, a publishing house, and a few other things. If churches go to far, as they are permitted to do, the local, state, and national convention simply stops accepting their financial support, seating their messengers at meetings, and attempts to explain/persuade them of the fellowship breaking error.
Baptists teach that baptism is not necessary for salvation, but is essential for fellowship with the local church. It is the primary public profession of faith, the door to fellowship with other believers, and to maturity, service, and sanctification as one follows Christ. Hope this helps.
Where I am from if u r not a member of an SBC Church ur an outsider n the community and people definitely treat u differently. If u say u r anything other than Baptist people will never leave u alone.. They don't seem to understand there where other Churches before them either and just because u r not like them doesn't mean u r damned for eternity.
So they'd absolutely lose their head if you said you were Presbyterian?
@@news_internationale2035 Yes, but I doubt they would know what a Presbyterian is and you definitely couldn't say you where or that your Church was anything close to anything that resembled Catholicism.. I had a teacher that said she was Lutheran one time and no one knew what that was so she explained and said it was close to Catholicism, came from that at least and everyone n class freaked out.
I hope the SBC "splits" it would be the healthiest move, in order for people to know who are the liberal churches and who are the conservative churches!
They’re still going to be splits over soteriological lines. You got the provisionists like Leighton Flowers who is as conservative as they come, and then you have the reformed baptists like Al Mohler.
Generally speaking, churches that choose to associate with the SBC are theologically conservative. The ones that are truly liberal left the convention a long time ago.
The SBC has dropped "Southern". They're in a slow process of changing their name to Great Commission Baptists. Also, I don't agree with the PC Nazis who bash anything connected with the South.
@@jamesreed5678 Hmmmmmm. "And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." Acts 11:26.
And let that group split from that one and so on lol
I don't know if they were ever affiliated with the SBC, but an independent Baptist church near me dropped "Baptist" from it's name.
One of the largest Baptist churches here, in Las Vegas, has also dropped the Baptist designation. It now refers to itself as merely a Christian Church. They are still a member of the SBC though so I don't really know what the deal is.
Would you know the world impact of the SBC?
"Whenever I talk to young guys about Eschatology..." is just a weird and esoteric way to start a sentence and I'm going to start throwing it into conversations that have nothing to do with Eschatology
"Yeah, yknow, whenever I talk to young guys about Eschatology, they tell me they think the MCU has really gone down hill after Endgame. Personally, I think its sucked waaaaay longer than that"
Have you done any videos on SDA?
I have not yet, but they are on my list.
@@curtbrockhaus6131 dude going outside might help
What happened to Ed Litton!!!!!???????
How about a video about the Independent Baptist churches
There are at least 20 videos on them in this channel already.
Independent Babtist Churches are solidly based on true interpretation of the scriptures.doing exactly what the Bible teaches.salvation is by grace through faith not by works.
They need to build their banner that reads: ‘Scripture: without error (depending on what you mean by error), but certainly not sufficient’
Certainly not sufficient?
Praying for your scoffing heart, brother.
HOw do you arrive a percentage of members of SBC with differing opinions on scripture, if the SBC has NO MEMBERS? My conclusion from much experience with SBC, is that it is a mixed multitude of believers & persons playing church.
I would proudly attend a Southern Baptist Church.
I would sneer at a Great Commission Baptist Church.
That word "southern" is important to me, when talking about being Baptist. Which I am not, but much of my family is.
Honestly, I can see a split more than anything. Unfortunately when Christian’s put the labels in and make that the reason they attend a church. It’s the wrong reason to be in a church when a denomination is over the local church.
That’s why I consider myself a reformed Christian that focuses more on what local church means verses what culture dictates the local church. It’s also about the sovereignty of God than it will be more about your church family or you own personal views. Everything should center God without compromising your faith in Christ which is what is going to lead people to damnation.
CBF joined the Baptist World Alliance
12:01
Where is this in the Bible?
I'd like to know what makes Macedonian Baptists different from other forms of Baptists.
Im not a Baptist But i think its better that they will unite all churches with one name only.
@Jaysun Sutton wat
I find myself not able to be as judgmental as I should me. I am questioning if I am really a Baptist after all. I know I am not an evangelical.
Please explain in more detail. Thx.
@@dennisbryant4095 I'd like to know too
@@MichaelTheophilus906 They are really
Did Jesus say he will build the Baptist church?
OOOOOOH, THAT'S why I keep getting directed to your polls in the community thingie. I forgot I used this video for research for my book. Good idea to watch it again to brush up, though, by the sequel, the main character does convert to--you ready for this?--Unitarian Universalist. Sorry: I just find most of your audience is hyper-conservative.
Well writing is always fun.
A lot of people looking for someone to "Bible Bash." It's not a fruitful activity.
but if they funded your building they will take the physical building if you leave
Looking at and knowing Baptist history, it is sad to see so many falling away from the truth, there is no doubt we are in the last days, even so come Lord Jesus.
SBC broke from American Baptist due to southerners supporting slavery thus you had Northern and Southern Baptist. The SBC did not admit their position on slavery was in error until 1988. I have the original filed some where.
They’d reaffirm it if they could
@@madcow9421 WE wouldn't reaffirm it! I have been Southern Baptist for over 50 years and I know of NO ONE who thinks slavery was a good idea. Don't assume too much.
@Jaysun Sutton slavery was a fact of life. Paul couldn’t change that. If you read the whole letter, you will see the slave apparently returned to Paul to help him in his master’s name. None of this implies slavery is good. It was their reality. In other letters, Paul encouraged slaves to accept freedom if possible. They didn’t have to remain as they were if given opportunity.
Having been a active southern Baptist for 43 years, I balance the love and knowledge of Jesus I received and the great rejection I later received from them when I beseeched them to stop slandering and love the immigrant. Sunday still remains the most segregated time of the week and that segregation leaks into their "wall" politics. I will in no way ever remain affiliated with them again.
The SBC is not responsible for segregated churches. People of color love to self-segregate. Also, the biblical function of the church isn't to facilitate first-world countries being transformed into third-world countries via socialist immigration.
@@jamesreed5678 Immigration isn't socialistic. It's biblical and God's commands to treat then with fairness and dignity is biblical. The catholic church is largely desegregated, you've a failed argument and a racist one at that.
@@LonestarEventPro MD, do you know that to be a citizen of Judea required adherence to Judaism? Do you know that in ancient Israel, immigrants couldn't buy land? You know nothing about the Bible's views on immigration. And, yes, 3rd-world immigration is socialistic. You live in a world of naive self-righteousness.
Little factoid… Steve Furtick affirms tounges
Of course he does, because he is a false teacher.
@@ministrydrummer Tounges is Biblical. Furtick’s modelism is not
@@slibertas1996 The gift of languages (tongues) ceased by the end of the apostolic era. Just as the Bible says it would. It's purposes were filled and it is no longer necessary.
The gift of tongues was the ability to speak in a known foreign language but one that was not known to the one speaking it. It would be like me being able to instantly speak in Zulu. It is a known foreign language, it is just not known to me.
In 1 Corinthians 13:8 Paul said that tongues will cease. Though it does not state precisely when the gift of tongues will cease, the text does indicate that the cessation of this gift will come before the gifts of prophecy and knowledge are “done away” with the arrival of “the perfect” (1 Corinthians 13:9-10).
There is compelling internal evidence from scripture that the cessation of the gift of tongues (better stated, the gift of languages) occurred in the Apostolic age. The gift of languages was a miraculous gift and the last recorded miracles in the New Testament were the healings on Malta (Acts 28:7-10) that occurred about the year A.D. 58. The gift of languages is only mentioned in Acts and 1 Corinthians. Later books such as Ephesians and Romans also mention spiritual gifts but the gift of languages is noticeably absent.
Church history also provides compelling evidence that the gift of languages (and the sign gifts in general) ceased with the closing of the Apostolic age. After the year A.D. 58 there is scant evidence that any genuine believers spoke in tongues. The only ones who spoke in tongues were heretical groups like the Montanists, the Jansenists, the Quakers and the Shakers. Then in the very early 20th century Charles Parham and William Seymour began the Azusa Revival and also claimed to speak in tongues. The Azusa Revival eventually gave rise to today’s modern charismatic movement.
In none of these examples, including that of today’s charismatics, is the genuine gift of languages demonstrated. Modern charismatics speak in unintelligible, ecstatic gibberish, not known foreign languages. Speaking in unintelligible gibberish is a pagan practice and can easily be learned. Speaking fluent Zulu instantaneously when not one word of Zulu is known beforehand is not.
If the gift of languages continued to be operative in the church, then why is it that since the Apostolic age ceased that only fringe, heretical groups claimed to have the gift? Why is it today that the Word-Faith/New Apostolic Reformation movements, home to the most brazen false prophets, heretics and manifestly obvious charlatans, are the ones who speak in tongues and yet good, doctrinally sound churches known for their consistent exposition of scripture and practice of church discipline, have no tongue speakers?
It is because the genuine gift of languages has ceased. Though spiritual gifts such as mercy, teaching, administration, exhortation, hospitality, giving, etc. have always been operative in the church and continue to be operative today, the Apostolic gifts ceased with the closing of the Apostolic age.
Serial divorce and remarriage is an issue among Baptists, at least judging by my relatives in Arkansas.
Same here, also in Arkansas
SBC 15M in 47,000
15:32
The Southern Baptist Convention is not a denomination but a convention.
Once you’ve rebelled, splits become easier and more frequent!
Prayers S.B.C. and to all my Protestant & Roman brothers and sisters! 🙏🌺☦️🌺🙏
Glad we rebelled from a very corrupt Roman Catholic Church at the time. I pray for those still in RC.
How can people of literally different gospels be “brothers and sisters?” Divisions are right and proper where the truth is a stake. Also, without divisions, culture and society would be the only guard against both unorthodoxy and heresy.
Ac7
Great Commission Baptists sounds really stupid. It sounds kind of arrogant, really. It makes them sound like they are the only ones that understand the Great Commission and the only ones doing mission work.
Yea, that’s most Baptists for you. Tis why I changed denominations.
@@scottlewis775 I get it. I totally understand.
I’m SBC. Need to remove directional name and the GC is heavily focused on. I don’t view it as saying we are better at it or others are do not do it, just that it is a major focus for the convention.
@@brianyoungberg9904 Actually I agree with you that dropping the regional adjective "Southern" would help. It falls forth a stereotyped image in the minds of many people that is unfortunate. And American Baptist, Free Will Baptist, Primitive Baptist, Regular Baptist and Reformed Baptist names are already taken. So I guess there is no perfect choice.
Just ask them,,, they are
Do you love Jesus??........Do you love his church??
No, the convention often "holds the title" and will refuse to give it to the local congregation even after they pay off the bank!!!!!?
The SBC does not own the property of any local church. Some former missions/church plants may have clauses in their property titles that revert the property back to the SBC/NAMB/State Convention if the group leaves the SBC, but that's only in that small case where the church chose to do so. This is likely less than 1% of SBC churches.
"The disciples were first called Christians......" (Acts 11:26); in fulfillment of Isaiah 62:1-2, the Gentiles/nations (Cornelius and house, Acts 10:47-48; 11:1) would see the salvation of God, and be called by a new name.
So simple and easy to see how faith in Jesus Christ is so unified…hahaha…you don’t even have to think hard about the phrase “a cacophony of voices crying in the wilderness!”
@ 5:40 I had heard that SBC would require baptism again if you were baptized in another church. I never knew that as a whole they were so warped and divided over this important issue. The one and ONLY Biblical requirement for baptism is that the person makes a clear profession of faith in Christ. Anyone who was sprinkled or baptized as an infant, or adult for that matter, has never been scripturally baptized according to the crystal clear teaching of scripture. To require that someone believe in eternal security is not in the Bible as a requirement for baptism anywhere. I would not join ANY church that would require me to be baptized again. They are making a demand that is not given to them by the Lord, period. Now, they should diligently question the person and make sure the person understands the gospel and gives a clear testimony of faith in Christ. Baptism MUST follow faith in Christ and MUST be by immersion. That's pretty much it. Don't add or take away from what the Bible says.
Baptism is a one time event in the entire life of a true believer in Christ, end of story. I do agree that anyone who believes baptism plays a part in their salvation is very likely not saved and may need to be baptized AFTER denouncing the damnable doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that baptism literally washes your sins away. Such a doctrine is in fact a doctrine of demons and will send millions to hell. Nobody should be allowed membership in ANY Baptist church who believes that heresy. I'm very close to my 44'th anniversary of my baptism. Nobody on earth will defile me by making me do something that should only be done once in a lifetime IF you know you were saved WHEN you were baptized and not BECAUSE of your baptism.
This is from the SBC website on baptism. Hope this helps.
Because of its autonomy, each cooperating Southern Baptist church determines such policies for itself-there is no denominational requirement in this regard. However, Southern Baptists have historically held that believer’s baptism by immersion is the mode that is the most consistent with the Bible. When Jesus gave His command in Matthew 28:18-20 to make disciples, the directive was to baptize those new believers/disciples. The word for baptism literally means “to immerse.” It was a practice reserved for those who had decided to follow Him.
Baptizing a believer by immersion conveys the picture of a person dying with Christ, being buried with Him, and being raised with Him in a new life (Romans 6:3, 4). This act is a voluntary declaration to all witnesses that the person has openly and unreservedly placed his/her faith in the Lord and will follow Him.
When a person is baptized as a baby, he/she has no knowledge of the Lord, repentance, salvation, discipleship, or any of the essentials related to following Him. This baptism may be meaningful to the family and may convey their deepest desire to dedicate that baby fully to the Lord, but because a baby cannot make such choices, such baptism does not convey these essential truths directly associated with a believer’s baptism.
Moreover, many non-Baptist denominations hold to a sacramental understanding of baptism-that the act of baptism itself confers come measure of grace upon the recipient. Baptists, on the other hand, view baptism as an ordinance that symbolizes that God’s grace is only conferred upon us through faith in Jesus Christ as we identify with his death, burial, and resurrection. Though it may seem counterintuitive when Baptists ask someone who received a sacramental baptism to be baptized into their membership, they are actually asking that person to be baptized to clarify that it is faith in Christ-not the act of baptism-that bestows all the grace necessary for their salvation.
When a Southern Baptist church requires baptism by immersion for membership, it is not inferring that a person who has been baptized by sprinkling is in any way inferior or unsaved. It is not an attempt to insult anyone; it is merely striving to be faithful to the Lord and His command, and asking those who wish to be members to do the same
@@brianmoody8482 I almost totally agree with all of that except the last paragraph. Any denomination that sprinkles or pours water onto a person is going against the clear meaning of baptism both in it's definition and it's Biblical example. I DO believe sprinkling is not only inferior, it is woefully unscriptural. Any person who has ever lived and got sprinkled did not get baptized even if they were truly trusting in Christ alone before that. That is not to say God could not use them and forgave them because they were in ignorance. I know there were godly men of the past who were sprinkled and sprinkled others. There is absolutely no excuse today to be in ignorance about baptism. Really, there wasn't then either for that matter! It is willful disobedience to God. It would be clear disobedience to the command of Christ to sprinkle anyone or to allow them into your ranks if they refuse scriptural baptism. If it wasn't that important it wouldn't be in the Bible. Some are going to be offended and those I think you are better off not to have in your church anyway.
Not true.
I’m older and remember SB churches of which I was a member not accepting ‘alien baptism’ but those days are mostly gone. If it was a believer’s immersion, there’s no issue, as long as they weren’t depending on the water to save them.
@@brianmoody8482 At the same time, requiring believers who were immersed in another denomination to repeat the act is ridiculous. I left the SBC because my daughter was immersed (at our decision) as a believer in the Methodist church and when we moved to join another Baptist church (my ex-wife and I were raised SBC), they balked.
Well, some years down the road we divorced and I remarried. My new wife was initially baptized by sprinkling in the UMC (meh). She married a man whose father was a Christian Church pastor and demanded she be immersed. She did so with no delusion that this was the point where she was saved; that was back in her teens, at which point she was sprinkled.
When I mentioned going back to the SBC, she rightly balked saying, "I was sprinkled once and dunked once; no way am I getting baptized a third time!"
How about the Woke Baptists?
It’s all about the money
If you mean by "inspired" "theopneustos" (a word which has no "in" idea with spiration), then men are not inspired; it is the Bible which is inspired, the scripture is theopneustos, God-breathed, even God outbreathed. Prophets transmitted God's word not by their own will, but as moved by the Holy Spirit. But speaking of men being "inspired" seems very theologically off. Inerrant is true. But "inspired" should be deleted from your theological vocabulary. Theopneustos is not a man being motivated by the Spirit to do something. It is the fact that Scripture is a divine creation.
We believe Jesus Christ was born of a virgin and the Son of God. John 3:16 sums up all of Christianity. Jesus died for the Sins of the entire world. #admendment1
Jesus included women in pastoral leadership
No
@Jaysun Sutton True
examples?
Like who?
I’ll just keep calling it the Racist Baptist Church, since it split from the Trenniel Convention over slavery calling it, “an institution of heaven.”
Eph4: And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
SBC is defined in Vs 14.
man made religion, What domination was Jesus?
I heard baptists say their church is the one true church. Pretty bold for a johnny come lately religion. This attitude makes them more a cult than a religion. IMO
I've been involved with Southern Baptist Churches for 57 years and pastored for 25 years and have never heard any claim that Baptists are the only true church.
That's the claim of the Catholic Church the Roman Catholic Church they don't even let you take communion which really shocked me since I grew up Baptist and baptists were like Hey if you think you're a Christian and you're OK with commun here you can have it
@Gordon Adams Have heard it too. That’s why I left for another denomination.
All of our points just goes to show that a Baptist perspective is hard to pin down as applying to all Baptists. There are a only a few core secondary doctrines that make one a Baptist, the rest only apply to particular congregations or individuals.
@@dhrevrogers very true. Also "cult" is simply used as a derogatory name for religion. Races, ethnic groups and sexual orientations also have nice names and derogatory names.
Often the word cult is used when a Church refuses to let people think for themselves. This will come as a shock to those who haven't been baptists: Most baptists churches strongly teach the "priesthood of all believers" and emphasize the Bible verse of "working out your own salvation."
I was taught that God would judge me based on my understanding of Him and Bible. I was taught if the church or preacher was wrong about something, I don't get excused for following them IF I understood they were wrong.
But alas, it was this kind of teaching which led me to leave the Baptists.
They had taught me to follow the Bible, and the Bible teaches women can be in authority over men...especially Paul taught that, the Bible is clear about that.
So I'm a Lutheran now, with a woman pastor.
Bible worship is idolatry. Idolatry is a requirement for SBC membership
Spoken like a true statue kissing papist
@@geordiewishart1683 I’m not catholic or Protestant
@@geordiewishart1683😂
SBC, the Baptist church with a heaping helping of klan sauce.
Well this aged like milk.
Please take a breath of air once in a while, Why the hurry to talk so fast ?
I was a Baptist Pastor and overseas missionary. I am gay, medically proven during electronic shock therapy and I have left the Baptist Church never to return. God creates some people gay, like it or not.
That’s disgusting
Calvinism has no place in the kingdom of God.
What are you talking about?
That seems to be an absolute position on your part. Did you come to that absolute statement by special relevation? Or was it foreordained from before the foundation of the world?
@Johnny Rep I like Molinism
What does that have to do with this video?
Keep seething.
Question? Your opening statement, "they don't want you to know." WHO ARE THE 'THEY' Its intent is to cause distrust. So I won't be using your company. I cant trust you now.
I couldn't care less. Walked away from them three years ago, and not going back