What Does a Baptist Believe?

I guess we can always come back to that later. I think that ultimately these questions will bear on the discussion as we dicover points of theology which are backed up not by Biblical support but by documents unique to the Mormon fiath.

In the meantime, you asked me to try and expand on my own faith background, so you understand what I am representing. Here I am afraid we may find ourselves in a bit of a pickle because of the nature of the protestant church and many of its consituent denominations.

You are asking me to assign myself to a "camp", like you are in the "Mormon camp". The problem is, Mormon theology if I understand correctly is similar to theology practiced by the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church, and several other protestant denominations. What all of these groups share is a "top-down" theological structure - the governing body of the denomination publishes official theological positions and revisions that are assumed to apply to all believers. When the change is made at the top, it is assumed to have been taken up by all believers. For example, up until the 1950's, the Catholic church held all its masses in Latin. This was just the way it was done. Then came the council, Vatican II, and the church leadership changed this practice for the whole church at once. Soem churches continue to perform masses in Latin but now it is a matter of local church governance whether the mass will be spoken in the local vernacular or in Latin.

This is not hte case in the bulk of protestant denominations and is ESPECIALLY not true of Baptists. Baptists have always been defined by their belief that the individual believer has a responsibility to work his or her own salvation "in fear and trembling"(Phil 2:12-13). We each should be examining the Bible for oursleves and attempting to apply its principles to our lives under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When you come to your own theological conclusions, you can talk about them with your brethren, and you can agree or disagree. As a basis for fellowship there are some agreed upon poitns of theology, which are usually written up in a "statement of faith" for a given church body, and all members are asked to subscribe to it. If you want to be a member of said body, then you must be in agreement with that statement of faith. In matters not specifically addressed in the statement of faith, there is freedom.

Statments of faith are most times restricted to the necessities of salvation - those things which the Bible is clear must be understood and agreed to in order to be saved and to have fellowship with other believers. These basics are open and disclosed to all.

I could give you a list of what I believe to be necessary for salvation, but you will not find it very enlightening, and you would also likely find it much the same as many many other denominations, which would not help you narrow down my viewpoints any. I myself hold to a number of positions theologically that my church takes no position on and permits freedom in the body of believers. For example, in the study of the last things, there are three main views regarding the timing of the return of Christ - a return of Christ before the reign of 1000 years (or the millenium), a return of Christ after the reign of 1000 years (presumably the church itself will reign 1000 years until Jesus returns), or a spiritual return of Christ only. I lean premillenial, but I am not dogmatic about it. If others want to believe differently I don't think they are going to hell.

Archaeology and Evidence

What role does Archaeology play in what we believe? For the longest time, there was little evidence of many of the ancient cultures and rulers mentioned in the Old Testament. In the last 150 years though with the advent of Archaeology as a significant course of study, archaeological finds in the Middle East have consistently pointed to the truth of the Bible as an historical record.

I have been thinking about why I believe in the Bible plus nothing, and why I am not open to considering the Book of Mormon as "Another Testament". The main stumbling block is just this: no archaeological evidence of any of the events, places, peoples that are mentioned in the book. The Golden Plates were discovered by Joseph Smith, but have not been retained by his followers. The witnesses to these plates were shown them in a supernatural event or events, involving the presence of angels. No other organizations of any stripe or persuasion have discovered evidence of the cultures and peoples expounded upon, that I know of. How does the LDS church respond to this?

The Nature of God: Part II

Nice and easy... kind of building a common ground for a framework? I can manage that, but I would imagine the most interesting things are points of difference. I hope we don't get too much into a systematic theology but I can go with this.

LDS believe that God is:

1. Perfected. He doesn't have faults or make mistakes.
Deut. 32:4.

2. All-powerful, omniscient, knows the future. Psalms 147:5; Acts
15:18

3. God is just and executes judgment with justice. Psalms 89:14; Jeremiah
23:5

4. God is merciful--on His conditions; which do not rob justice. Ex. 20:6;
Deut. 7:9.

5. God is not a changeable God; He is the same yesterday, today and
forever. Malachi 3:6

Do Baptists agree with these attributes or disagree, and on
what basis?

On all these points I think we are in basic agreement. I would add to #2, He doesn't just know the future, He created the future and it is all part of His plan, but that is really more Calvinist than Baptist, and that is my personal leaning. As for your Biblical citations, There may be a couple that are more apt than others, but this is a good basis.

PS. I edited the title of your entry for clarity.