David S. Dockery

What does it mean to be Baptist? “Ask any Baptist this question and you will receive as many answers as there are Baptists” (43). While some might claim Baptists are those who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, others might cling to the soul freedom and the authority of religious experience. Some argue they originated during the English Reformation, while others contend that we draw upon our history as the Second Front of the Magisterial Reformation an entire century earlier. Some might show more even still contend that Baptists have existed since Jesus was baptized in the Jordan. Sadly, Baptists are a people who cling to a shared history and identity while not necessarily agreeing upon which particular shared identity that might be.

“From time to time there has been a need for Baptists to once again reflect on who they are and what they believe, particularly in light of what can be called the historic orthodox consensus throughout the history of the church” (11). In response to that need in our day, David Dockery, President of Union University, has edited this compilation of articles and presentations by several leading Southern Baptist voices on the topic of Southern Baptist identity. University and seminary presidents, pastors and former convention presidents, and others serving at the denomination level join together to revisit our shared history, recognize the challenges of our contemporary culture, and set forth a unified identity for the future of the people called Southern Baptists.
Summary

In the monumental task of discerning a unified identity of Southern Baptists, each author necessarily brings one’s own personality, experience, and unique perspective. Yet as one reads the various authors, three general streams of consensus begin to yield themselves to the reader. Amidst the myriad of voices, experiences, and research, readers come to recognize the common threads of regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and congregational church polity. “These three principles,” according to Al Mohler, “are an irreducible minimum of Baptist identity” (27).

The clearest, and most consistent, principle of Baptist identity is that of regenerate church membership. Hearkening back to the earliest of Baptists, whether one finds their origins in the sixteenth century Anabaptists or the seventeenth century English Separatists, one discovers the vital distinction between a state-church and a church of professing believers. “If there is any one defining mark of the Baptist, it is the understanding that membership in the church comes by personal profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ” (26).

The second principle is that of believer’s baptism. Baptists were forged during a time of widespread paedobaptism. While the Roman Catholic and Reformation churches were baptizing infants into the “covenant community” based upon an interpretation that looked at baptism through the lens of Old Testament circumcision, Baptists have always understood it to be the first step in obedience for new believers. “In the New Testament baptism is the first command of Christian discipleship” (85). New Testament baptism, then, is the outward expression of the eternal transaction that has taken place in the life of the believer. This eternal immigration from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of God is not predicated upon a child’s birth into a family that happens to live in a nation where infants are baptized into the state church. It is only accomplished when that child (or adult) responds to the gospel in faith and repentance. Therefore, baptism must follow conversion.

The third common principle among Baptists is that of congregational church polity. Rather than a structure that requires churches to submit to a centralized leadership agency or personnel, Baptists maintain that each local expression of the church is autonomous and, according to New Testament guidelines, not subject to the rule of one or few, but to the corporate leadership of the Holy Spirit through his people. “Congregationalism affirms that it is the covenanted community that must take responsibility for the ordering of the church, for the preaching of the gospel, and for everything else that God has assigned to the church in this age” (27).
Evaluation

Regenerate church membership and believer’s baptism have long maintained lofty status within the discussion of Baptist theological distinctives. It may be surprising, then, to read of such unity throughout the book’s various authors on the importance of congregational church polity. The contemporary argument that it is not efficient enough to work in the modern context and must be replaced with an empowering of the church staff echoes arguments in support of Presbyterian church governance, which was refuted by Baptists on the grounds that all believers were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. The contemporary argument that pastors know best how to run the church, and that rather than boards or committees chaired by lay leadership, churches should be governed by boards of pastors of other churches, echoes arguments in support of Episcopalian church governance. This was refuted by Baptists who maintained that churches were autonomous and not under the controlling hand of any external agency. Though this method of church governance has come under criticism seemingly from all sides, and perhaps due to that criticism, the authors contend that congregational polity is a characteristic of a Baptist church.

Chapter Seven, “The Roots of Baptist Beliefs,” by James Leo Garrett, was tremendously insightful, as the author traced the annals of church history in order to provide the much-needed historical development of Baptist beliefs. He displays the theological contributions to Baptist thought of the early ecumenical councils (Trinitarian and Christological doctrines), the medieval sectarian and reforming groups (their “anti-ascetical, anti-sacramental, and primitivist intentions”), the magisterial Reformers (the supremacy of Scripture, justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all Christians, memorialist view of the Lord’s Supper, church discipline, and the doctrine of predestination), the Anabaptists (believer’s baptism, church discipline as necessary, New Testament superiority, and religious freedom), and the English Separatists (humanity’s Adamic disability, the Bible as the rule of faith and practice, the priesthood of all Christians, and congregational polity) (195). For those researching the doctrinal development of the Baptists, this chapter is without equal.

Jim Shaddix’s chapter, “The Future of the Traditional Church,” brought incredible insight into the underlying reason for the exodus that occurs for many young Baptists between the Youth Department and the Young Adult Class – lifeless Christianity. “Our children are not running from our lifeless style and form; they’re running from something intangible… They’re running from a lifeless Christianity. And they’re so turned off by it that they’re running to nothing as an alternative” (205). And this repellant cannot be removed by updated worship and building styles, or pragmatic principles. He states prophetically, “Our irrelevance doesn’t come from forms and styles. Our irrelevance comes from a hollow, lifeless religion that is devoid of the Holy Spirit’s presence and power and absent of biblical direction” (214). The solution then is not an alteration of methods and marketing, but rather a return to sound doctrine and the faithful, expository preaching of God’s Word.

In light of current conversations within the Southern Baptist Convention, one cannot help but take notice of the thread of Calvinist discussion that weaves its way throughout the search for Southern Baptist identity. The Doctrines of Grace have long held a place in Baptist theology and history. Garrett writes, “John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination…had an impact on the theology of many Anglo-American Baptists” (144). Neither has Calvinism, however, been the sole soteriological understanding of Baptists. Timothy George asks, “Are Baptists Calvinists? Historically and empirically, the answer to this question is: some are and some are not, and it has been thus among Baptists for nearly 400 years” (95). This book – with its diversity of authors and contributors – lends a vital and seemingly absent voice to the current traditional Southern Baptist soteriological debate: Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike have always existed side-by-side for the propagation of the gospel at home and abroad. Both sides of the debate need one another. Neither perspective finds more credibility than the other from the Baptist Faith and Message. “There is room for a variety of views within the SBC on how divine sovereignty relates to human responsibility and freedom” (112).
Conclusion

Seeking to establish a credible, historical, and theological foundation upon which Southern Baptists can agree is a monumental and daunting task. However, it is vitally important. This book, and every other similar endeavor hinges on one distinctive that has yet to be discussed in this review, although it undergirds the entire discussion. Baptists are known as the people of the book. The Conservative Resurgence displayed the vast importance of a shared commitment and submission to the Holy Writ. Without a common foundational understanding of the complete truthfulness of scripture, there simply can be no common ground to stand upon. This, then, is the primary identity of Southern Baptists. All other distinctives flow from this foutainhead of authority. Regenerate church membership, believer’s baptism, and congregational polity all flow from this stream – that the Bible “is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation as its end, and truth without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore Scripture is totally true and trustworthy (Article I, Baptist Faith and Message).” show less

The Worldview Study Bible seeks to remind Christians that the Bible is not just a book that we read to feel more religious, we are changed by it, our thinking, our worldview, our perspective of everything is changed when we use it to renew our mind.

This Bible has many articles in it, scattered throughout and dealing with various 'worldview' topics, articles like: "Biblical Models for Business", "Engaging LGBT Advocates", "Emperor and King Worship in Biblical Times", "Animal Rights" , "A show more Biblical Assessment of Abortion", and so on. Some of the articles are quite interesting and helpful. Others, I had some trouble with some of the content. For instance, in the article on "Biblical Formation", dealing with various ways one can utilize the Scriptures, it says, "Praying through the Bible flows naturally from Scripture meditation. Giants of the faith, such as Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon, and especially George Mueller, made a habit of praying through Scripture…..Praying the Scriptures helps to assure that one's prayers are biblically sound and pleasing to God."

I think that if praying through the Scriptures was a way to pray correctly, then Christ would have told the disciples to grab some copies of portions of the Old Testament and pray them. He could have demonstrated by quoting one of the Psalms, or a passage of Isaiah. But instead he gave them a model prayer. How does one pray through the book of Leviticus? Or Judges? Should we pray the imprecatory songs, while thinking of a particular person who hates us when we are told in the New Testament to "Love our enemies"? How would we know that the Scripture we are praying is the right scripture for us to be praying at that moment? The Apostle Paul shows us that it is already assumed that we will have trouble praying biblically sound prayers, that we do not know how to pray correctly, but that's where the Holy Spirit comes in, "And in like manner the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity: for we know not how to pray as we ought; but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;"(Rom 8:26) The Spirit wouldn't need to intercede for us if we already knew how to pray as we ought, and the Bible doesn’t say that we ever will get to a point where we know how to pray correctly, this side of eternity. That's where our Helper comes in.

And then, there is an article that seems to downplay the validity of Christian young earth creationists arguing with Christian old earth creationists, as if they should focus on arguing their common enemy (atheistic evolutionists) rather than debate the validity of each other's hermeneutic. But don't we remember that bad doctrine will most likely come from within the "church"? Aren't we to look out for our brethren and correct them in a fault? Aren't we judging those within the church, see 1 Cor 5:12 (I know, that passage is dealing with practical moral sins, not necessarily bad viewpoints, but its implications may apply here as well), aren't we critiquing the viewpoints of those within our midst, making sure that we all have an accurate view of God's Word? We don't expect the world to listen to us, we don't expect the world to ever have a correct viewpoint, but we do want to help our brethren, fellow Christians, stay away from dangerous hermeneutics. We are our brother's keeper.

This Bible also has a good deal of commentary. A lot of it seems pretty useful, and using a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. For instance, in the commentary on Jeremiah 29:11 it says, ""While it is true that from an eternal perspective God has good plans for believers (Ps 84:11; Rm 828), this of cited verse should be understood first with respect to its addressees; exiles who would have to wait an extended time for God to restore them…" But the hermeneutic seems to change in spots, like in Revelation, where it speaks of the 144,000, "The number 144,000, with multiples of twelve and multiples of ten (completeness), is symbolic of the entire people of God. That the tribe of Dan is missing while Joseph as well as Manassah (Joseph's son) are listed further supports the symbolic nature of the list." Huh? How do those things clue us in to this section's not being literal? The context would seem to indicate that it should most certainly be taken literally. After the description of these tribes, the VERY NEXT verse says, "After this I looked, and there was a vast multitude from every nation, tribe, people, and language, which no one could number". Differentiating this group of many peoples from the sealed of the twelve tribes of Israel. How much clearer, could it be? It differentiates between those in Christ who were sealed from Israel, and points out a more inclusive group later on, encompassing all peoples? How much clearer could John get in describing what he saw? Does he have to go through each tribe and say, "And I heard the number of the sealed, 144,000, sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel: 12,000 from the tribe of Judah were sealed, Judah was the son of Jacob (also called Israel), the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, born in the year such and such. The tribe of Judah was made up of all of the living descendants of Judah. The first descendant's name was George, the second, Robert…..the 12,000th, Charles. And I also saw that their physical features resembled Judah's. 12,000 from the tribe of Reuben were sealed, Reuben was the son of Jacob (also called Israel), the son of Isaac…." Would that make it more likely to be literal? I suspect that some would think that the more detailed it gets, the more figurative it is. Omissions and replacements of tribes does not mean that this is not to be taken literally, it probably should be taken VERY literally and the omission of Dan might be significant in some way, taken as such. We shouldn't assume that the omission of one of the original tribes indicates that this is not Israel. Why would God HAVE to choose men from the tribe of Dan to be sealed in order for this to be literal, ethnic Israel? Do we not remember what Paul tells us in Romans 9? Not all Israel is Israel, and that God has the right to choose whomever He wishes within Israel (even individual tribes).

This "Worldview" Bible has a lot of good notes, and some interesting essays, I just don't like some of the concepts in the essays, nor do I like the inconsistency in the hermeneutics. Also, the essays scattered throughout seem a bit too distracting. I think that if you are going to put multiple essays in a Bible it would be better to put them at the end of the book, and then you can just look up the page number in the index if you want to read a particular article, instead of it breaking up the text.

This particular study Bible is okay but not great.

Many thanks to the folks at B&H publishers for sending me a free review copy of this Bible! My review did not have to be favorable. show less

The Holman Illustrated Bible Handbook is designed with an awareness of the obstacles people have to understanding the Bible. It begins with an essay on "How to Read and Study the Bible" before proceeding to chapters that provide a thorough overview of each of the Bible's 66 books, summarizing each one's content, author, evidences of authenticity, and historical context. In addition to the full-color maps, photographs, reconstructions, and charts that equip readers throughout the volume, a show more link is included for each chapter that leads to related online teaching from noted Bible scholar Gene Getz. There's also an article by Jeremy Howard (general editor of the award-winning HCSB Study Bible) explaining how each book of the Old and New Testaments was accepted into the Bible. show less

Excellent little introduction to proper biblical interpretation methods and tools. I took a class from Dr. Guthrie (one of the authors) using this book as a guide and it changed the way I look at scripture. After going through this, I recommend getting a book that will take you deeper into the interpretive journey, such as Grasping God's Word.