Creed, Confession, and Cooperation
Southwestern Journal of Theology
Volume 67, No. 2 - Spring 2025
Editor: Malcolm B. Yarnell III
On July 16, 1651, John Clarke, John Randall, and Obadiah Holmes visited William Witter at his home in Lynn, Massachusetts. Witter, a Baptist, was elderly, sick, and nearly blind. They held a worship service, preaching to several neighbors gathered there and baptizing a few. The three men were soon arrested and put in prison in Boston. They were held for several days and ordered to pay a fine or be whipped. Clarke and Randall each paid, or someone paid for them, a fine of ₤20. Holmes, the more vocal, was assessed a fine of ₤30, which he refused to pay or allow anyone else to pay. He was held in jail until September 5, when his sentence was carried out. Obadiah Holmes had his hands tied to a stake, was stripped to the waist, and whipped thirty times. He preached through the whipping, testifying that God had manifested his presence so that he could endure the pain. After the beating Holmes said, “. . . when he had loosed me from the Post, having joyfulness in my heart, and cheerfulness in my countenance, as the Spectators observed, I told the Magistrates, you have struck me as with roses.”1
What was Holmes’s offense that warranted either a fine or such a brutal beating? He was Baptist. Holmes was charged with the crimes of baptizing those who “were Baptized before, and thereby did necessarily deny the Baptism that was administered to be Baptism . . . And also did deny the lawfulness of Baptizing infants . . . .”2 Holmes’s commitment to uphold Baptist convictions resulted in his brutal punishment. Holmes is not alone; historically, many Baptists since the seventeenth century have a similar testimony. Is maintaining Baptist convictions really worth facing opposition and suffering? We are surrounded by a Baptist cloud of witnesses who would say, “Yes.” If so, what are these Baptist convictions?
The Roots of Baptist Convictions3
Baptist convictions originate from several important sources. James Leo Garrett Jr. summarizes the “roots” of Baptist beliefs.4 Garrett first points out that the roots of Baptist belief in the Trinity and Christology lie in the creeds of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451).5 With the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, Baptists affirm the doctrine of the Trinity, Christ being consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father, and the Holy Spirit possessing the full deity and equality with the Father and the Son. From their beginning, Baptists have also affirmed Chalcedonian Christology, Christ having two natures (fully God and fully human) in one person. The early confessions of faith from the General,6 Particular,7 and American Baptists,8 demonstrate the clear affirmations of the Trinity and orthodox Christology.
Garrett also notes the major beliefs shaped by the Reformation. First, several theological points from Martin Luther become basic to Baptist thought: the supremacy of Scripture, Christ as the center of Scripture, justification by God’s grace through faith alone, and the priesthood of all believers.9 Baptists’ memorial view of the Lord’s Supper comes from Ulrich Zwingli. John Calvin’s influence on many English-speaking Baptists is seen mostly in predestination, while Martin Bucer’s teaching on church discipline becomes a strong element of Baptist theology.10 Garrett points out the marked similarities between the sixteenth-century Anabaptists and Baptists. Both practiced believers’ Baptism and regenerate church membership, a believers’ Church. Both share an understanding that the New Testament provides the pattern for the church. Both also share a deep concern for religious liberty. However, Baptists rejected several features of Anabaptist practice, including their denial that believers could serve as magistrates, their refusal to take oaths, their objections to serving in the army, and their church disciplinary practice of shunning.11
Garrett notes the influence of English Separatism. First, the Bible is the supreme authority, “the rule of faith and practice.” Second, both General and Particular Baptists took seriously humanity’s fallenness. Third, the Separatist idea of the church as a royal priesthood became part of Baptist ecclesiology. Finally, the Separatist practice of congregational polity shaped Baptist ecclesiology.12 Baptists rejected infant baptism and asserted the idea of religious liberty. Garrett’s survey provides a clear picture that the roots of Baptist convictions go down into the rich soils of the early church and the various Reformation movements. Baptist convictions are both ancient and reforming, striving to fashion the church according to the principles of the New Testament.
Two Foundational Baptist Convictions
Sola Scriptura
Scripture provides the foundation for Baptist convictions. A survey of Baptist confessions from the seventeenth century to the current day reveals the crucial role of the Word of God. The First London Confession of 1644 confesses Scripture as “The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience concerning the worship and service of God” and that the “written Word of God” clearly reveals what God has deemed “needful for us to know, believe, and acknowledge” concerning Christ.13 This sets a pattern in Baptist confessions of affirming Scripture as God’s revelation of himself with a Christocentric focus in Scripture. These ideas are stated in a multitude of Baptist Confessions, both English and American: the Midland Association of Particular Baptists in 1655, the Somerset Confession of 1656, the Second London Confession of 1677/1688, the Philadelphia Confession of 1742, the Sandy Creek Confession of 1816, the New Hampshire Baptist Confession in 1833, and the Baptist Faith and Message (1925, 1963, and 2000) of the Southern Baptist Convention.
The key components of Baptist conviction regarding the Bible include its inspiration, authority, inerrancy, sufficiency, and a Christocentric focus. Key to Baptist convictions is the belief that the Holy Spirit worked in and through the writers of Scripture in such a way that what the Bible says actually is the Word of God. L. Russ Bush and Tom Nettles have documented that four hundred years of Baptist convictions have upheld the belief that the Bible is inspired, authoritative, and inerrant.14
Baptists’ understanding of sola Scriptura, a principle shared by other Protestants, maintains a Christocentric focus producing a distinctive ecclesiology: the Old Testament points forward to Christ, the New Testament explains Christ and looks forward to his return. Baptists have understood this to mean that Christ established a new covenant distinct from the old covenant. Thus, the pattern for the church’s nature and ministry is found in the New Testament rather than in the theocracy of Old Testament Israel. To be clear, this does not mean a diminished view of the Old Testament; on the contrary, the Hebrew Scriptures are as inspired of God as the Greek Scriptures. The distinction is not one of inspiration, authority, inerrancy, or sufficiency, but a difference of pattern for the church, which is not the same as national Israel. The goal for Baptists has been replicating the pattern of the church’s polity and ministry as presented in the New Testament. The emphasis on the New Testament for the pattern of the church is demonstrated in the way Scripture is used to describe the church’s nature and ministry. Of the above-mentioned Baptist confessions, the scriptural support for their statements on the church comes exclusively from the New Testament. This recognition of the distinction of the testaments provided an ecclesiology unlike other Protestants, one uniquely Baptist.
The Gospel
The other foundational conviction for Baptists, also shared by many other Protestants, is the strong focus on the gospel, which delimits the church’s nature and ministry. The Nicene Creed may provide the most influential statement about the church: “And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.” These four “marks”—unity, holiness, universality (catholicity), and apostolicity—are all grounded in the gospel. Clearly, unity is a biblical theme and is founded on the gospel. Ephesians 4:4-6 states that “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were also called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.”15 Holiness, whether understood as the church being “set apart” or as practicing morally pure conduct, is a fruit of believing the gospel. Being “set apart” can only happen “in Christ” as a regenerate church body, and holy conduct is the result of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling and empowering, a reality of the gospel.
Universality has been variously understood, but each perspective actually finds its roots in the gospel. The Patristic Church understood universality to mean that all churches, no matter their geographic location, shared the same orthodox faith. The Reformers saw universality in terms of holding to orthodoxy across time. As Christianity spread, the word came to mean extending into all areas and all types of people. The one thing that makes Christianity a worldwide phenomenon is that there is one way of salvation, by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The Great Commission mandates that the church make disciples of all peoples, culminating in “a great multitude . . . from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb” (Rev 7:9). And how does this crowd come together? They are there because the Lamb of God was slain “and purchased for God with your blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. You have made them a kingdom of priests to our God, and they will reign upon the earth” (Rev 5:9-10). Universality is only possible based on the gospel.
Finally, apostolicity by its very nature refers to the apostolic message of the gospel. Orthodoxy is teaching that is faithful to apostolic teaching, the divinely inspired Scripture. Since the apostolic-prophetic word of Scripture is the foundation of the church (Eph 2:19-22), to be apostolic is to be faithful to the Scriptures. Scripture is clear on its message of salvation through Jesus Christ. Thus, apostolicity is a mark of the gospel.
Taken as a whole, these four terms mean that a true church is oriented around the exclusive message of God’s gracious salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. John Hammett summarizes this best when he refers to the gospel as the “true sine qua non of a true church.”16
The Distinctive Baptist Convictions
Regenerate Church Membership
Baptists’ commitment to biblical authority and the gospel are evident in the pivotal conviction that distinguishes Baptists from many others: regenerate church membership. As R. Stanton Norman observes, “The doctrine of a regenerate church membership is one natural and logical conclusion of the Baptist commitment to biblical authority.”17 Baptist distinctiveness begins here. Church membership comprised of both the regenerate and the unregenerate, a view held by the Magisterial Reformers, is viewed by Baptists as a violation of the New Testament pattern. John Smyth wrote that “the church of Christ is a company of the faithful; baptized after confession of sin and of faith, endowed with the power of Christ.”18 Thomas Helwys stated that “the church of CHRIST is a company of faithful people” separated from the world by the Word and the Spirit, united through baptism and mutual confession of faith.19 The Particular Baptist’s London Confession of 1644 followed suit by describing the church as a visible “company of Saints, called and separated from the world” by the Word and the Spirit, “joined to the Lord, and each other” by mutual profession of faith and baptism.20 Regenerate church membership is included in every major Baptist confession from the seventeenth century to today.
What led to this conviction? The pattern of the New Testament church. From John’s Prologue that those who believe on Christ’s name have been born of God and become children of God (John 1:12-13) to Jesus’s discussion with Nicodemus about the need to be born of the Spirit (John 3), Jesus’s teaching is clear that eternal life and entry into God’s kingdom require being born again through faith in Jesus Christ. Note also the emphasis Paul places on being a new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) and of our salvation occurring through the “washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). In Romans 6, Paul stresses our union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection that “we might walk in newness of life.” Observe also the pattern of churches formed in the New Testament. In Acts 2 the gospel was preached, 3,000 believed and were baptized, forming the Jerusalem church. In Acts 8 Philip preached to the Samaritans who believed the gospel, and in Acts 10 Peter preached to Cornelius’s household, bringing the gospel to the Gentiles. During Paul’s missionary journeys, a church was established only as the gospel was preached and people believed in Jesus Christ.
Regenerate church membership is crucial for the church’s identity, mission, and ministry. The three major images of the church—the people of God, the body of Christ, and the temple of the Spirit—assume that the church is a believers’ church. God’s people are such solely through faith in Jesus Christ, for those once “not a people” are now God’s people that we “may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light” (1 Pet 2:9-10). One becomes a member of the body of Christ only by being baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ (1 Cor 12:13). Consequently, we all receive abilities from the Holy Spirit to do the work of ministry. The church is the temple of God in which the Spirit of God dwells (1 Cor 3:16-17). One becomes part of this holy temple by coming to Christ and being built into “a spiritual house for a holy priesthood,” offering spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ (1 Pet 1:4-5). The identity of Christ’s church is based on its being a regenerate church and its ministry of world-wide disciple-making can only be carried out by those born of God by the Holy Spirit.
Believer’s Baptism
Closely tied to regenerate church membership is the ordinance of believers’ baptism, the most visible distinctive of Baptist churches. Baptist beginnings follow a similar pattern in which baptism became the decisive issue. Studying the New Testament led many to question and reject the long-established practice of infant baptism. They saw that the New Testament revealed a pattern of baptism which followed preaching the gospel and belief in Jesus Christ. This was the case for Smyth and Helwys as they led their separatist church in Amsterdam to reconstitute based on profession of faith and baptism, thus becoming the very first Baptist church. Though some Mennonite influence was probable, this likely only hastened the direction in which the Smyth-Helwys group was already heading. In 1638, John Spilsbury led a group out of the Jacob-Lathrop-Jessey church over baptism, rejecting infant baptism and affirming believers’ baptism. In 1644 the Particular Baptist churches in London wrote that baptism is a sign of salvation for those having professed faith in Christ; furthermore, baptism should be by “dipping or plunging the whole body under water.”21 This story is repeated multiple times in Baptist history.
The biblical basis for believers’ baptism begins with the Great Commission. The command to make disciples of all peoples starts with proclaiming the gospel, followed by baptizing in the name of the Triune God and teaching all that Jesus commanded. Baptism does not precede gospel proclamation but follows it. There is a definite order: preach— believe—baptize—teach. The book of Acts demonstrates this pattern. In Acts 2, Peter’s preaching of the gospel resulted in 3,000 people believing in Christ and receiving baptism. In Acts 8, the Samaritans were baptized only after they believed the gospel message which Philip preached. Later, an Ethiopian eunuch was baptized after believing in Christ. Paul’s own experience was to receive baptism following his conversion on the Damascus Road. Peter’s preaching to Cornelius and the Gentiles gathered in his house resulted in their believing in Christ, receiving the Holy Spirit, and then being baptized (Acts 10). This pattern is repeated in Acts Paul spoke the gospel to Lydia and her household followed by their conversion and subsequent baptism; later the Philippian jailor and his household all believed in Christ and then were baptized. Crispus, the synagogue leader (Acts 18), and the disciples of John the Baptist (Acts 19) also fit the same pattern: preach the gospel, place your faith in Christ, be baptized, and teach the church. In every instance, baptism follows faith and is subordinate to the gospel.
Romans 6:3-5 provides a picture of baptism as symbolic of union with Christ in his death to sin, burial, and resurrection. Union with Christ means being baptized into his death; therefore, “we have been buried with him through baptism unto death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection.” Baptism as a witness and symbol of that union presupposes a prior faith in Christ. As observed with the practice of baptism in Acts, baptism serves as the initiatory ceremony bringing a new believer into the church. As an initiatory rite, baptism symbolizes both a believer’s union with Christ and incorporation into his Body, the church. Those subject to baptism, then, are those able to understand the gospel and respond to Christ in faith. Baptism represents a public testimony to one’s conversion, a profession of allegiance to Christ, and an identification with God’s people, the church. For these reasons, Baptists have rejected infant baptism as a human tradition, one not in conformity to the New Testament pattern. Finally, the imagery in Romans 6:3-5 paints a vivid picture of immersion as the mode of baptism. Add to this the meaning of βαπτιζω as “to dip, submerge, or immerse” and it is little wonder why Baptists have confessed that believers’ baptism fits the pattern of the New Testament church.
Memorial Lord’s Supper
The Lord’s Supper is the second ordinance of Baptist churches. A perusal through Baptist confessions yields the following descriptions: it is a sign of communion with Christ and the faithful, a perpetual remembrance of Christ’s death and spiritual nourishment for believers, a corporate commemoration of Christ’s death, a commemoration of Christ’s death for our sins, and a symbolic act by which the church memorializes Christ’s death and anticipates his return. Two things stand out. First, the Lord’s Supper is a remembrance, commemoration, or memorial; second, it is intended for the church members, i.e., regenerate believers.
Baptists’ memorial view of the Lord’s Supper sets them apart from Catholics and most Protestants. Baptists affirm neither transubstantiation nor consubstantiation. Baptists have not been concerned with what happens to the elements of the Supper. Baptists have been concerned to replicate the pattern laid out in the teachings of the New Testament. How did Baptists come to the memorial view? Ulrich Zwingli delineated the memorial view in the sixteenth century, noting that Jesus’s words “This is my body” were to be understood symbolically, not literally, as the Catholics and Luther had done. Zwingli viewed Christ as being present in the believing community rather than in the elements.22 He focused on the Lord’s Supper as a remembrance of Christ’s death for us. Baptists followed Zwingli’s exposition.
Scripturally, support for the remembrance view comes from two primary passages of Scripture: Jesus’s teaching in the Synoptic Gospels and Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11. In Luke 22:19 Jesus broke bread and gave it to the disciples and told them, “This is my body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” Verse 20 states that he did the same with the cup which represented the new covenant in his blood. The apostle Paul highlights this in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26; in reference to
the bread and the cup, Paul draws attention to Jesus’s words “do this in remembrance of me.” Hence, Baptists have viewed this as the pattern of the early church, partaking the Supper as a commemoration of Christ’s atonement. Some believe a memorial is too weak a concept for the Lord’s Supper. However, this misunderstands the meaning of a commemoration. A commemoration is more than a memory of a past event. A memorial honors a person or event, a call to reflect with solemnity and/or celebration on the significance of what that person or event has accomplished. In our case, it involves both person and event, a commemoration of Jesus Christ and his atoning work on our behalf. Far from “nothing happening” in the Supper, the remembrance is transformative as it proclaims the Lord’s death, renews our allegiance to Christ, anticipates his return, and calls forth our commitment to one another. Hammett summarizes the meaning of the Lord’s Supper as bringing about a renewal to Christ himself, a renewal to Christ’s church, and a renewal to Christ’s mission.23
Congregational Polity
As Baptists have sought to replicate the New Testament pattern regarding regenerate church membership and ordinances as signifying the gospel, so they have sought to replicate the structure and polity of the first century church. Rather than a top down hierarchical structure, Baptists operate with a bottom up structure. Episcopalian polity locates the human level of decision making in the bishops; Presbyterianism locates this level of decision making in boards of elders, sessions, and presbytery. Both approaches establish a hierarchy of authority above the local church. Congregational polity, on the other hand, locates the human level of decision making with the gathered congregation itself, having no other level of human authority above it. The church operates directly under Christ’s lordship, independent of a denominational structure.
James Leo Garrett describes congregationalism as meaning that “the congregation governs itself under the lordship of Jesus Christ (Christocracy) and with the leadership of the Holy Spirit (pneumatophoria) with no superior or governing ecclesiastical bodies (autonomy) and with every member having a voice in its affairs and decisions (democracy).”24 Autonomy means the local church makes its own decisions regarding leadership, missions, how it does ministry, finances, property, etc. Democracy also means that every member of the church has a responsibility for participating in carrying out the church’s ministry.
What is the biblical foundation for congregationalism? Congregationalism came into Baptist practice from the English Separatist tradition, which also wanted to reestablish the New Testament pattern. That pattern is found in Jesus’s instructions in Matthew 18:15-20; disciplinary issues are handled within the church. In Acts 6:1-7 the church chose its own deacons. In Acts 15 the church in Antioch sent representatives to Jerusalem for help with a threatening theological problem. The Jerusalem church listened to the apostles and sent messengers to the churches in Antioch, Syria, and Celicia. Church discipline was handled by the local church; note Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church (1 Cor 5:4-5; 2 Cor 2:6). In the New Testament letters the churches each operated in a self-governing manner.
Congregationalism operates on two important theological truths: The headship of Christ and the priesthood of all believers. As head of the church (Col 1:18, 2:19; Eph 1:22) Christ has authority over it to direct his church to accomplish his mission. The priesthood of all believers means that the church is a “royal priesthood” (1 Pet 2:9) in which all its members must be involved in doing the work of the ministry. As a believing priesthood, the local church offers to God sacrifices of praise (Heb 13:15), good works (Heb 13:16), and new converts (Rom 15:16), bears witness to the world about the gospel, and intercedes for its members and its mission. As in all else, in governance the goal is to follow the New Testament pattern.
Religious Freedom
One final major Baptist conviction to highlight is religious liberty. Like the continental Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, English and American Baptists quickly became convinced that the purity and protection of the gospel would best be served by keeping the government out of the church. Thomas Helwys wrote The Mystery of Iniquity in 1612, the first plea for religious liberty in English, in which he questioned the king’s right to rule over the spiritual matters of the church. In 1635 in New England, Roger Williams argued that the civil magistrate’s power extended only to “Bodies and Goods;” the state does not possess religious authority because God alone is the judge of a person’s conscience. In 1639, Williams founded Providence Township, a colony practicing religious freedom. Later, in 1644, John Clarke, who had recently become Baptist, founded the Newport colony based on religious liberty. He later published Ill News from New England, which includes “The Whipping of Obadiah Holmes,” to document the religious oppression by the state church.
In 1773, Isaac Backus, a Baptist pastor in Massachusetts, wrote An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, in which he argued that civil and ecclesiastical governments are distinct and should be separated. The current state-church arrangement in New England violated the New Testament pattern in that it placed unregenerate civil authorities over the spiritual affairs of the church, thus usurping God’s authority. The arrangement led to persecution as the worldly kingdom rules over Christ’s kingdom. In 1784 John Leland and Virginia Baptists labored hard to gain religious liberty in the state of Virginia, achieving this goal in 1785 with the help of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. The fight continued, though, as they sought to get religious freedom written into the United States Constitution. Finally, true to his promise to John Leland and the Virginia Baptists, James Madison introduced the first amendment to the Constitution in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, guaranteeing religious freedom throughout the United States.
The fight for religious liberty is not over. There is always the threat of human governments overreaching their responsibilities to exercise power in spiritual matters. This can happen either “positively” by those who push to establish a union of church and state for societal improvement, in which case the church always loses. Or this can happen negatively through oppression of certain religious groups. Religious liberty guarantees the right of individuals, or any religious body, to believe as they wish without fear of governmental reprisal. Our forefathers understood that the only way to safeguard the voluntary response to the gospel was with religious freedom. The best way to protect the purity of the gospel is through religious liberty, protected from civil authorities who would alter it and coerce faith for temporal agendas. Baptists lived with persecution for the first two centuries of their existence. They knew firsthand that a coerced faith is a sham faith. Consequently, nearly every major Baptist confession of faith includes an article affirming religious liberty. Faith in Christ has nothing to do with human governments but has only to do with God and the individual’s conscience. Human governments will always try to encroach; we must remain vigilant in contending for religious liberty.
Conclusion
Each of these distinctives could extend to a book-length treatment to do it justice; this survey, admittedly, leaves much unsaid. However, the goal has been to state the major meaning of each distinctive and demonstrate that each one represents an effort by Baptists to replicate the pattern of the New Testament church in its identity, mission, and ministry. Thus, these convictions coalesce to form the uniqueness of Baptists. However, these convictions are not about being Baptist for the sake of being Baptist; rather these Baptist convictions are about becoming the ideal church that the New Testament envisions. We have not yet attained perfection; we have a way to go. Therefore, let us continue the pursuit of being the church that our Lord Jesus Christ intends for us to be.
- John Clarke, “The Whipping of Obadiah Holmes, 1651,” in Readings in Baptist History: Four Centuries of Selected Documents (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2008), 35. ↩︎
- Clarke, “The Whipping of Obadiah Holmes,” 32. ↩︎
- Due to space limitations, each of following convictions has to be treated with very broad brushstrokes, addressing only the major issue. Thus, the treatment must leave out many important supporting details. ↩︎
- James Leo Garrett, Jr., Baptist Theology: A Four-Century Study (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2009), 1-22. ↩︎
- Garrett, Baptist Theology, 1-3. ↩︎
- William L. Lumpkin and Bill J. Leonard, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 2nd rev. ed. (Philadelphia: Judson, 2001); “Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles by John Smyth,” 93-94; Thomas Helwys, “A Short Confession of Faith, 1610,” 95-105; “A Declaration of Faith of English People Remaining in Amsterdam, 1611,” 106-14; “The Standard Confession, 1660,” 202-15; and “The Orthodox Creed, 1678,” 298-348. ↩︎
- Lumpkin and Leonard, Baptist Confessions of Faith, “London Confession, 1644,” 131-60; and “The Assembly or Second London Confession, 1677 and 1688.” 216-97. ↩︎
- Lumpkin and Leonard, Baptist Confessions of Faith, “The Philadelphia Confession, 1742,” 363-71; “The Principles of Faith of the Sandy Creek Association, 1816,” 373-75; “The New Hampshire Confession, 1833,” 376-83; and all three Baptist Faith and Message editions, 1925, 1963, and 2000. ↩︎
- Garrett, Baptist Theology, 7. ↩︎
- Garrett, Baptist Theology, 7. ↩︎
- Garrett, Baptist Theology, 8-16. ↩︎
- Garrett, Baptist Theology, 16-22. ↩︎
- Lumpkin and Leonard, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 146. ↩︎
- L. Russ Bush and Tom J. Nettles, Baptists and the Bible, rev. ed. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1990). ↩︎
- Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture references are from the New American Standard Bible,
1995. ↩︎ - John S. Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches: A Contemporary Ecclesiology (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005), 66. ↩︎
- R. Stanton Norman, The Baptist Way: Distinctives of a Baptist Church (Nashville, Broadman & Holman, 2005), 47. ↩︎
- John Smyth, “A Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles,” in Baptist Confessions of Faith, 95. ↩︎
- Thomas Helwys, “A Declaration of Faith of English People,” in Baptist Confessions of Faith, 111. ↩︎
- Lumpkin and Leonard, Baptist Confessions of Faith, 153-154. ↩︎
- Lumpkin and Leonard, “London Confession, 1644,” in Baptist Confessions of Faith, 155. ↩︎
- Norman, The Baptist Way, 146. ↩︎
- Hammett, Biblical Foundations for Baptist Churches, 281-283. ↩︎
- James Leo Garrett, Jr. Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (North Richland Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 2001), 644. ↩︎
