PRINCIPLES AND CUSTOMS OF THE BAPTISTS: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE WITH FOCUS ON BRAZIL *Zaqueu Moreira de Oliveira Presented to BWA Heritage and Identity Commission, 8 July 2003, Rio de Janeiro Introduction One of my early recollections is playing on the sand with other neighborhood kids, and being called a protestant. I lifted up my head and vehemently rehearsed what I had learned at church: “I’m not a Protestant, I’m a Baptist.” The implied message was that the Protestants began with Luther and Baptist history started in the first century.[1] This way to explain our past was “my truth” about the Baptists, and I was proud of it. Another experience took place years later, and it illustrates some of the arguments presented here. My father was a pious pastor working as a missionary for the Brazilian Home Mission Board. He worked in the interior and had a profound knowledge of the Scriptures. I was still a young pastor, when my dear father visited me and made the following observation: “This dangerous Pentecostal plague of clapping hands while singing at church, is already reaching my missionary field.” Later he went to the church I pastored in the Amazon valley, where joyful Christians sang and gladly clapped their hands. I mention these two examples to show how, when it comes to faith and practice, our teaching often differs from historical accuracy and biblical truth. That takes place in churches, denominational meetings, and even seminaries. We strongly defend liberty, but in reality oppose it when we are intolerant of people who think differently or have different practices from ours. Frequently our attitude reflects the Positivism of August Comte, where everything can be explained and understood as if it were a mathematical formula. In one occasion, I argued with God because the turn of events did not seem to match “my math”– in fact I tried to understand God’s will in my own limited mind. It was then that I concluded that my logic contained only four operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication and division); however, God is eternal and infinite, so we have to agree that divine mathematics is more like “infinity plus infinity is infinity,” rather than “two plus two is four.” We shall never understand the eternal and the infinite, so we are free to explain things in different ways, without adversely affecting the principles which identify us. We may teach and understand theology, but we shall never be able to teach or pass on our faith. Faith is the product of experience, and though we try to explain it, words cannot express the essence of our experience. No one can truly understand who I am; my innermost identity cannot be known, even by those who are closest to me. Anyone may be surprised, at times, with my words or actions. By the same token, there is a Baptist identity which we try to explain, but as with other experiential realities, we are limited in what we can actually teach and convey. We cannot define who we are simply based on customs that always existed in Christian churches, and throughout Baptist history, since the 17th century. The first Baptist lay pastor, Thomas Helwys was still in Holland, when he decided return to England to announce to his fellow countrymen the truth he had found. He knew he would be persecuted, since his unique group, which was not Episcopalian, neither Presbyterian, neither Anabaptist-Mennonite, adopted the principle of liberty of conscience, which he boldly declared in his book, A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity.[2] Exclusiveness that hinders dialog and understanding with those who think differently must be renounced and avoided, and that will not deny the fact that we have our own distinctions that identify us as Baptists, though these characteristics are still not easily understood or taught. However, our own distinctive traits should not be confused with the essence of the biblical doctrine, nor with customs that prevent detraction from primitive Christianity ecclesiology, nor with “worship in spirit and truth” (John 4:24). Many “formulas” that we have learned about ourselves must be rethought, without removing the remaining essence of who we are, which distinguishes us from Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Pentecostals or Mennonites. For a proper understanding of this discussion about Baptist principles and customs, some preliminary remarks are in order: (1) we do not discuss Baptist Doctrines, because we understand that doctrines are biblical (not Baptist),[3] and it is our interpretation of the Bible that leads us to take different approaches or positions regarding these doctrines. If we characterize doctrines of the Word of God as exclusive to our denomination, we would devalue all that we have learned from Christ and the apostles. (2) What really distinguishes us as a group is a set of universal principles; that is, for it to be a distinctive principle, all Baptists, all over the world, must follow a given principle. Some Baptists actually add other principles to this set, but these additional principles are only characteristic of particular groups of Baptists, in different localities, countries, or geographic regions. For instance, Brazilian Baptists from the Brazilian Baptist Convention accept some principles that are not universal, so we would not think of those rejecting these principles as being from the Brazilian Baptist Convention, but rejecting those particular principles does not preclude them from being Baptists. So we cannot affirm that every Baptist ought to be Calvinist or Arminian, nor that they ought to accept open or restricted communion, because from the beginning of our history there were both Arminian and Calvinist Baptists, as well as defenders of both open and restricted communion. (3) It is important to note that there is no principle which is exclusive of the Baptists. Different denominations have included in their principles one, two, or more so called Baptist principles. (4) The Baptists are not identified through customs, but principles. From the beginning some different groups of Baptists practiced several customs, including some which are now perceived as being exclusive of the Pentecostal churches. With these introductory remarks in mind, we divide this paper in four sections, in addition to the conclusion: (1) Baptist principles; (2) theological and ecclesiological positions of Baptists; (3) other Baptist practices; (4) Evaluation of the Brazilian Baptists. In the Conclusion section, we make fourteen assertions that we need to think through and reconsider. I. Baptist Principles As we mentioned above, Baptists are identified by universal principles, not by those which are accepted only by specific groups, in a given region or country. So we do not include theological positions as Baptist principles, since some of them are tied to scatology or divers doctrinal emphases which characterize specific groups, but not all the Baptists. Some examples of positions mistaken for Baptist principles by many Baptist leaders include the following: the restrict communion (not open), the universal atonement of Christ (not predestination), and the perseverance of the saints (the saints do not fall away from the grace of God). We must not take customs as principles, including those which are often believed to be common in the Pentecostal churches. Some of them were practiced by Baptists in the past, and are still practiced by some Baptists today. Among them are the use of words like “hallelujah” and “amen” during public worship, and the custom of raising hands while singing or praying. 1.1 Evangelical or Reformation Principles We cannot talk about Baptist principles without mention those which are defended by all the Protestants, since the 16th century. We do not recognize as Evangelical those groups who call themselves Evangelical, but they do not accept some of the Reformation principles. Like all the denominations which came from the Reform movement, the Baptists defend these three principles. 1.1.1 Justification by faith – The first of these principles was identified by Luther through the study of the Scriptures, when he lectured on Paul’s Letters to the Romans and to the Galatians at the University of Wittenberg, between 1515 and 1517.[4] He saw the failure of the Roman Church, which put the Church at the center, and good works at the same level as faith. We are saved by faith, and works are not the cause but the effect of faith, practiced by the new creature in Christ. It is the sola fide, that is, justification by faith alone.[5] Some question the usage of the label “evangelical” for groups such as the Seventh Day Adventists, who emphasize good works. 1.1.2 Authority of the Scriptures – The second evangelical principle is the authority of the Scriptures. Some people add that the Bible is the only rule of faith and practice for all Christians. The foundation for this principle is in the Bible itself, which shows in texts such as Acts 17:11, II Timothy 3:16 and II Peter 1:21, the importance of reading and searching God’s direction in the Scriptures. The Roman Catholic position, however, is that the Bible can be interpreted only by the clergy; while laymen are warned against reading the Bible. Nonetheless, the fathers of the Church writings, which the Roman Church, in the Council of Trent, put on equal footing as Scriptures as a source of truth,[6] admonish both clergy and laymen to read the Bible. So Irenaeus leads the people to feed themselves from the Scriptures; Clement and Tertullian say that the couple should read the Bible together; Origen teaches that the Christian must read the Bible at least one or two hours daily, adding that sometimes the laymen are better interpreters than the clergymen. Eusebius asserts that laymen and clergymen ought to read and to follow the Bible, because it is a book of discipline. We turn our attention to Luther again, who criticizes the Roman Church for putting the authority of the Bible at the same level as tradition. Many of the traditional writings may be valuable, but we cannot compare them with the books from the Christian canon, written in the first century. The Reformation churches discard the apocryphal books as well, which were officially included as deuteron-canonic by the Council of Trent, but received the same value of the proto- canonic books. We as Evangelicals and Baptists, on the other hand, use the characteristic term from the Protestant Reformation,sola scriptura. 1.1.3 Priesthood of all believers – This principle was a backlash to the development of a hierarchy, starting in the second century, when the Presbyters’ Counsel took the place of the apostles. Little by little the local bishop became the administrator of the churches in the region, and later some of them claimed universal jurisdiction over them. In strife against heresy, mainly the Gnosticism, Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus overemphasized the authority of the bishops. Then Irenaeus’ idea of apostolic succession emerged, being reinforced in the third century by Cyprian. Clericalism and sacerdotalism took form, and Christians lost the right to be the people of God and to go directly to God, because only the clergy represented the believers before God. This “separation of clergy and laity and the tyranny of the former over the latter”[7] hindered fellowship with God and with the brethren. The authority of bishops in big cities like Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome increased, and the bishop of Rome eventually claimed catholic jurisdiction over the church, and was seen in the Occidental world as the successor of Peter, representing Christ on earth. This was the tradition developed since Ireneaus in the second century. The priesthood of all believers was defended by the dissident groups in the Middle Age, including the Petrobrusians, Waldensees and the followers of Arnold of Brescia. In the 16th century the principle was defended by Anabaptists, and in the 17th century by the Baptists. In summary, we believe that the Christians can go directly to God, without a mediator from the church. So the Baptists reject the sacerdotal idea that grants privilege to a special class which is seen as if it were an elite. This principle is connected to the Protestant Reformation principle of free research and free interpretation of the Scriptures. Luther tried to give the Bible to the people when he translated it to the German language. Later, other versions of the Bible were provided in different languages. When the Bible was in the hands and in the mind of the people, the Roman Church felt threatened, and pope Pius IX issued the famous document, Syllabus of Errors, in 1864, in which Biblical Societies are deemed to be an evil or a “pest” to be condemned.[8] According to the Baptists, every Christian is competent to read and to interpret the Bible, without having to delegate this privilege to any institution or to a priest.[9] 1.2 Universal Baptist principles In this section, we discuss principles that have been common to Baptists, since the first half of the 17th century. Even today, Baptists all over the world accept these principles. Here we exclude principles that are specific to certain groups or countries, such as Baptists from the Brazilian Baptist Convention. 1.2.1 Baptism of believers (regenerate) – The baptism of believers was the reason which led John Smyth and Thomas Helwys to begin their church, which had become Separatist in England and emigrated to Holland. Like the Anabaptists in the 16th century, and the Mennonites in Amsterdam, Smyth, in 1609, was convinced through his study of Scriptures that the baptism should only be ministered to those who believe. So he immediately put in practice that view, as he intended to restore the New Testament model for the church. In 1638, that very same position was taken by John Spilsbury in a Separatist church in England, namely the Church of Jacob, also known as JLJ Church.[10] He was convinced that baptism should be ministered only to those who believe, and infant baptism should be rejected, so he led a friendly separation from JLJ Church and formed a new group. The difference between this group and Smyth’s is that the former adopted Calvinism, while the latter adopted Arminianism. The acceptance of the general or the particular atonement of Christ differentiated them, and kept them separate up to 1891, when they combined to form the Baptist Union of Britain and Ireland.[11] This principle has been enunciated when it was said that the church was constituted of baptized believers. Scriptural basis is found in texts such as John 3:5, Acts 2:38, Acts 2:41-42 and Romans 6:1-6. Some of the fathers of the Church, including Justin, Tertulian and Athanasius, defended baptism only after instruction or teaching, and confession of faith. The Council of Laodicea, in 267, ordered that all those admitted for the baptism should be able to repeat the creed. The validity of the infant baptism was denied by Donatists, Petrobrusians, Waldensees, Lollards and the Bohemian Brethren. Several groups, before and after the beginning of our history, have also adopted baptism of believers. 1.2.2 Congregational church (local and autonomous) – The principle of local and autonomous church is what many call “congregational church.” We believe that since New Testament times this principle was practiced in the churches, but the new moment for the congregationalism came in the 1580’s, when a man from England, Robert Browne, published three treatises about congregationalism,[12] which were adopted by the English Separatists. Both the General and the Particular Baptists maintained this principle as fundamental, defending that no church, even the biggest ones, and no pastor or leader can meddle in the affairs of another local church, which works as a democratic group. It is true that centralization of denominational work has hurt this principle in some ways, particularly when conventions, associations of churches, associations of pastors, or other institutions act as if they were above the churches. The church is composed of baptized believers, so it is a voluntary association of persons who were regenerated through the Holy Spirit, and it is ruled by the membership through democratic principles, rather than by a pastor or a priest. 1.2.3 Baptism by immersion – It is possible that some people reject the baptism by immersion as being an universal principle of the Baptists, because at the beginning they were baptized by pouring. However, early in the 1640’s, the Particular Baptists became convinced that “baptism ought to be by dipping the body into the water, resembling burial and rising again.”[13] So they sent Richard Blunt to be instructed by the Collegiants Mennonites in Holland, where he was baptized by immersion. On his return to England, Blunt baptized the teacher of the church and they baptized fifty-one others. Since then, immersion became practiced by all the Particular Baptists and soon after by all the General Baptists.[14] Today one cannot think about Baptists using sprinkling or pouring. We do not accept other modes of baptism due to the etymology of the word, the practice in the New Testament (Jn 3:23, Mt 3:16, Acts 8:38), and the symbolism of the ordinance (Rom 6:3-6, Gal 3:27, Col 2:12). 1.2.4 Religious freedom – This principle has been one of the most costly to the Baptists throughout their history. Scriptural basis is found in texts such as John 8:32, Galatians 5:1, 13, James 1:25 and I Peter 2:16. From the beginning, the idea was shun coercion in matters of faith; individuals should keep religion according to their conscience. In modern times the first document presenting the idea of religious freedom was written by the first Baptist leader, John Smyth, in his Propositions and Conclusions, which was sent by his followers to the Mennonites in 1612. Since 1610 Smyth had requested affiliation to the Mennonites, but Thomas Helwys with about 10 or 12 other Christians did not agree and remained Baptists. Also in 1612, Helwys wrote the book A Short Declaration of the Mistery of Iniquity, considered to be the first publication to defend the principle of religious freedom in modern times. In fact, the initial struggle was against the religious persecution, and the principle only matured and was further developed through the influence of other Baptists, such as Leonard Busher, John Murton, Edward Barber, Thomas Collier, William Dell and mainly Samuel Richardson, and Roger Williams.[15] In spite of this principle, we do recognize that we are often intolerant of others, who think differently from us, whether they be from within or from without our own ranks. That is not surprising though, considering that we are heirs of Thomas Helwys, who was against the use of sword for matters of conscience and extended freedom of conscience to tyrants and Catholic idolaters,[16] but was intolerant when he declared that the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Puritans, and English Separatists would be punished with “a spiritual sword” for their mistakes.[17] On the one hand, his equanimity was apparent when he said that even the king is not responsible for anybody’s conscience, and he ought to let transgressors act as heretics, without punishment by earthly power.[18] On the other hand, he appeared intolerant when he accused Smyth of sin against the Holy Spirit; because he had fallen away, he deserved eternal condemnation.[19] Helwys views may seem to be inconsistent, but his intolerance reflected the times in which he lived.[20] In any case, liberty and democracy grew in England and in the United States, and one of the shaping influences that helped these principles to take root were the Baptists, who are considered champions of religious liberty, to this day. 1.2.5 Separation of church and state – Closely related to the principle of religious freedom is separation of church and state. Although Nicene Christianity had become the official religion only under Theodosius I (379-395), since the time of Constantine, the Emperor had adopted Christianity, and Christians were granted special privileges. The official advantages granted to Christianity, along with the Emperor’s role as pontifex maximus of the state-sponsored religion, point to a strong connection between Church and State.[21] Thereafter, emperors reinforced the councils’ decrees against those who should be condemned as heretics, both in the occidental and in the oriental world. Throughout the Middle Ages, there was a power struggle between Church and State, wherein the Church exerted dominance at times, but was under subjugation at other times. The traditional reformers continued to practice union of church and state, leading to the intolerance which was sadly a trait of Lutheran, Zwinglian, Calvinistic, and Anglican reforms. Even when the persecuted dissidents from England became Congregationalists and went to the New England, they persecuted the Baptists and others who disagreed with their viewpoints. In the short span of time when the Presbyterians were in power in England, there was great religious intolerance. In the 16th century, only the Anabaptists defended separation of church and state, and they were harassed by both Catholics and Protestants for holding that view. Some groups, including the Mennonites, went as far as discarding the participation of Christians in the public affairs. In the 17th century, the Baptists disagreed with this radical Mennonite position, but they still strived for separation of church and state, asserting that church and state walk different roads. Their view was that there may be cooperation between them, but never intervention or interference of one on the other. Roger Williams, who is considered in the United States the father of religious freedom, criticized the union between church and state as incompatible with the regenerate church.[22] The Baptist John Leland, was the one who most influenced Thomas Jefferson in the contention for religious freedom and the condemnation of state religion, which resulted in an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in 1791.[23] From Helwys till today, Baptists defend that religion cannot be imposed, and that Government ought to serve as a catalyst to promote mutual respect among faiths, since it is not the State but the Holy Spirit, through the Christians, who attracts sinners to Christ. 1.2.6 Symbolism of the ordinances – the symbolism of scriptural ordinances was gradually replaced by the idea of sacraments, which is a natural result the sacerdotalism derived from pagan influence. To fight against the Gnostic heresy, the authority of the Church concentrated in the hands of the bishops, who were divinely authorized to administer baptism, which was considered necessary for salvation. Justin wrote about baptismal regeneration and Irenaeus attributes to the water, in the baptism, a saving divine power. In the third century, Tertulian says that baptism is regeneration. However, it was Cyprian who more developed the sacerdotal idea in the Church. The term “sacrament” resembles Latin loyalty of the military oath, and it implies that physical elements provide salvation and spiritual grace.[24] This idea was largely developed in the Middle Ages. Some writers mentioned 12 sacraments, but in 1550, Peter Lombard talked about seven; in the 13th century, this number was confirmed by Thomas of Aquinas, with emphasis on baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This became the official position of the Church of Rome. The reformers limited the number of sacraments to two or three. Ulrich Zwingli was the first reformer to mention the symbolic character of the elements in the Lord’s Supper, and that led to a controversy with Luther in the Marburg Conference, in 1529.[25] In general, the Anabaptists assimilated the Zwinglian position, and the Separatists in England stayed with the Calvinistic position, adopting the sacramental idea, though in a different way from Luther. The Baptists used the term “sacrament” at the beginning, but truly rejected the sacramental idea, defending the symbolism of the ordinances. In fact, the Baptists avoided the use of the term “initiation” for baptism, although this is the way new Christians are received in the churches as members. Baptism serves as a public testimony of one’s new life in Christ; the moment of immersion reminds us that the old man is dead and buried, while the ensuing emersion points to the resurrection or new life in Christ, according to Romans 6.3-l6. Similarly, the Lord’s Supper is a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, who gave his body and shed his blood for the remission of sins. One of the purposes for the Lord’s Supper, as described in I Corinthians 10.16, is to bring Christians together in fellowship, or “communion,” and yet differences of interpretation have led Christians to be divided over this matter. Baptists agree that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper does not involve eating the literal body nor drinking the literal blood of Christ – it is a memorial of Jesus’ sacrifice, and an announcement of the Lord’s death until he comes (1Co 11.26). So baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not sacraments, but ordinances in which Christians must participate, to remind them of their new life and the sacrifice of Christ for their salvation. 1.2.7 Cooperative work – The independence or autonomy of each local church does not preclude cooperative work, which is indispensable to the fulfillment of the “great commission.” From the beginning Baptist churches did not act isolated, but they sought fellowship with other churches which accepted the same principles. The inceptive cased took place as early as 1624, when five churches of the General Baptists took some public positions in concert, regarding oaths, magistrates, and military work.[26] Afterwards associations were organized by the General Baptists and by the Particular Baptists, the former being more centralized. The name “association” was used since 1655. Their aim was to use confessions of faith to oppose some Government or other evangelical groups’ positions that they considered wrong. In the United States it was not different: in 1707, five churches organized the Philadelphia Association, which was followed by several others during the 18th century. In 1800, there were 48 associations in the United States.[27] It did not take long for assemblies and conventions (or unions) to be formed in the United States and England. Fortunately, Baptists understood from the beginning, that challenges of distance and limited resources can be met by cooperative work.[28] In Brazil, the Baptists from the Brazilian Baptist Convention[29] followed the organizational model of the Southern Baptist Convention, but today they are looking to a new structure, trying to adapt to Brazilian realities and needs. We understand that some form of cooperation exists in all the Baptist churches in the world. Models range from limited cooperation among Independent Baptists (independence is relative), who may have fellowships or may work together through independent mission boards, to the other groups which have associations, State conventions, and national conventions. Conventions and associations are used in Brazil, enabling small churches to be actively engaged in missionary, social and educational activities. 1.3 Principles of the Brazilian Baptist Convention In this section we refer to the principles that are accepted by the totality of the churches of the Brazilian Baptist Convention, knowing that these also subscribe to all the principles previously enunciated. Certainly, there must be others that could be included, however, we shall maintain those that, in some fashion, are contained in the Doctrinal Statement of the Brazilian Baptist Convention,[30] or are implicit in the Statutes or in the intentions, or yet, in the Statement of Purpose. 1.3.1 Security of the saved – There is a general view in Brazil that Baptists are Arminians. The truth is that security of the saved, or an “irresistible grace” is a strongly Calvinistic principle of Agostinian origin,[31]negating the idea of “falling from grace” which, since the 17th century has been accepted by many Baptists, including by Thomas Helwys. The certainty of salvation is expressed vehemently not only by leaders, but also by the simplest believer in Brazil. The Doctrinal Statement of the Brazilian Baptist Convention which officially defines its doctrinal interpretation since 1986, clearly states that “God, in the exercise of his sovereign divinity and in the light of His foreknowledge of all things, elected, called, predestinated, justified and glorified those who over the ages would freely accept the gift of salvation.”[32] The text continues by affirming that this election is perfectly consonant with the free will of each person and all men, and that salvation of the believer is eternal. “No force or circumstance has the power to separate the believer from the love of God in Christ Jesus.” The Scriptural basis for this statement is John 3:36, 10:28-29, Romans 8:29-30, Ephesians 1:4-14, II Thessalonians 2:13-14. 1.3.2 Universal atonement of Christ – The second principle of Brazilian Baptist Convention differs from the previous one, because it is characteristic of Arminianism. Contrary to the position of the Particular Baptists who hold that Christ died only for the elect, emphasis is placed in Christ’s redemptive work for all men, stemming from the universal love of God, even though the redeemed will be only those who believe on Christ, according to John 3:16 and John 3:36. This principle is fundamental to the missionary ardor of Brazilian Baptists, propelling believers to obey Jesus’ great commission, to go and make disciples in all nations (Mat 28:19-20). 1.3.3 Dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the believer – The principle that the believer receives the Holy Spirit at the moment he believes, or at the moment of his new birth, is contrary to the position generally accepted by the Pentecostals, which states the need for a second blessing, or that the baptism of the Holy Spirit should be an experience after conversion of the believer. Landers wrote: “For the Pentecostals, the baptism in the Holy Spirit is a second work of grace, distinct from conversion, and which takes a believer to a superior spiritual level.”[33] In fact, this item, and not certain practices to be mentioned further on, is today the wedge dividing the Brazilian Baptist Convention and the National Baptist Convention, better known as the “Spiritual Renewal” movement.[34] The Doctrinal Statement explains the official position of the Brazilian Baptist Convention on this subject: “The baptism in the Holy Spirit always occurs when sinners convert to Christ Jesus, who integrates them to the Church, being regenerated by the Holy Spirit.”[35] Thus, the Christian, at conversion, has become the Holy Spirit’s dwelling place. The Statement affirms specifically that the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. Biblical basis is found in Acts 2:38, I Corinthians 12:12-13 and, mainly, Romans 8:9-11. 1.3.4 Coherent Christian life (Christian testimony) – The security of the saved does not lead them to a licentious life, but to a productive one, with a Christian testimony which draws a line between them and persons who do not have Christ in their hearts. However, it remains clear: the simple fact that a Christian has the Holy Spirit does not exempt him from sin. A Christian sins, but does not remain in sin, as his nature is different. Sanctification is a process that lasts a lifetime, during which the Christian seeks the moral and spiritual perfection of Jesus Christ. The ideal is to reach the fullness of the Holy Spirit, but any new experience the Christian may have, that leads him to produce more fruit for God, does not place him on a pedestal above his brethren, nor guarantees that he will always be at the summit in his spiritual life. There will be highs and lows, although the ideal process would be progressive sanctification. Those regenerated through Christ do not find pleasure in sin, confirming the Biblical expression: “And by this we may be sure that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 Jn 2:3). 1.3.5 Evangelization and missions – Brazilian Baptists have a passion for missions and affirm that the Christian’s main task is to evangelize the world. Therefore, it is the obligation of the churches and, specifically of Christ’s disciples, to proclaim the gospel. Since the responsibility of evangelization is to the ends of the world, the churches need to promote missionary endeavors. Innumerous texts refer to the fulfillment of this mission, such as Mathew 29:19-20, Luke 24:46-48, Acts 1:8, Romans 1:16, 10:13-15 and I Peter 2:9-10. II. Theological and Ecclesiological Positions of Baptists Here we present some items connected with doctrinal interpretation or the customs adopted by Baptists in some of the most famous statements of faith.[36] Of course, we have chosen those items that are not included in the universal principles and that today are questioned by many churches, particularly in Brazil, with the false idea that some of the controversial topics have always had a definite position for Baptist throughout their history, and that to think differently is to renounce one’s Baptist identity. 2.1 Perseverance of the Saints As this subject has been dealt with in previous sections, we shall not consider here all affirmations – Arminian nor Calvinistic – of the first confessions of faith. We shall only mention expressions of some of these documents, demonstrating the opposite position expressed by those who defend the point of view that a believer can fall from grace, and those who defend the perseverance of believers. Helwys, in his Declaration of Faith,[37] published in 1611, leads us to understand in Article 4 that a man can fall from grace, and affirms in Article 7 that a just man can abandon his justice and perish: That men may fall from the grace off GOD, Heb. 12.15, and from the truth, which they have received & acknowledged. […] And therefore let no man to thinke that because he hath, or had once grace, therefore he shall alwaies have Grace: But […] iff they continew vnto the ende, they shalbee saved.[38] On their side, the Particular Baptists, in their so-called First London Confession,[39] in 1644, speak in Article 21 of “salvation and reconciliation onely for the elect,”[40] and, in article 23 affirm that “Those that have this pretious faith […] can never finally nor totally fall away; and though many stormes and floods do arise and beat against them, yet […] shall be kept by the power of God to salvation.”[41] In Article 11, the Particular Baptist document known as The Somerset Confession,[42] dating 1656, expresses: “That those that are chosen of God, called and justified, shall never finally fall from him, but being born from above are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation.”[43] The document known as the Second London Confession,[44] of 1677, offers a more objective expression in stating that those “sanctified by his Spirit, […] can neither totally nor finally fall from the state of Grace.”[45] In the United States, in the 19th century, article 11 of The New Hampshire Confession[46] of 1833, presents a very Calvinistic position as to the perseverance of the saints through the following statement: “That such only are real believers as endure unto the end; that their persevering attachment to Christ is the grand mark which distinguishes them from mere professors.”[47] On the other hand, the Treatise on the Faith of the Free Will Baptists[48] (originally written in 1834, and revised in 1954), presents an Arminian position in Article 13, when it speaks of the hope of the truly regenerate who persevere to the end, but final salvation is uncertain, as there is the danger of falling, for which reason they are “to watch and pray lest they make shipwreck of their faith and be lost.”[49] 2.2 The Visible Universal (Catholic) Church Due to the emphasis on the local church, some think that Baptists do not accept the existence of the visible universal church. Concerning this, the Particular Baptists, in their Second London Confession, dating 1677, speak in chapter 26 of ”the Catholick, or universal Church, which […] consists of the whole number of the Elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof.”[50] It also speaks of the local churches (congregations), the members of which are saints, who should maintain communion among themselves, exercising gifts and graces, growing in love and mutual edification. The churches are constituted of officials and members, who are united in continual prayer for the well-being and prosperity of the churches of Christ in every place. There is no institution for the totality of local congregations, but they form the visible church of Christ on earth. Also the General Baptists, in Articles 29 and 30 of the Orthodox Creed[51] (1679), after mentioning the invisible universal church and the local congregations, they affirm: “We believe the visible church of Christ on earth is made up of several distinct congregations, which make up that one catholick church, or mystical body of Christ.”[52] Other Baptist documents make statements concerning this visible universal church on earth. 2.3 Bishop or Messenger According to Baptist principles, church officials are pastors, also called bishops or presbyters, and deacons. Actually, John Smyth, in one of his writing,[53] affirmed this in saying: “the officers of a true visible Church are of two kinds: (i) Bishops, who in the New Testament are also called Elders or Presbyters, and (ii) Deacons.”[54] In the beginning, Particular Baptists, in Article 36 of the London Confession, of 1644, similar to the position of Calvin, mention the officials of the churches as being four officials, namely, pastors, professors, presbyters and deacons.[55] In the Second Confession, dating 1677, the number of officials already defined in Article 26, as being bishops, or elders, are also called pastors, and deacons.[56] However, history shows that in the 17th century, the General Baptists had officials known as messengers, who acted as administrators or bishops, similar to the apostles in the New Testament, taking on the responsibility of several churches in a determined region. As a matter of fact, the messengers were officials of the Church (with a capital “C”), being their responsibility the government of the churches which had elected them, while the elders and deacons were officials of the local churches and congregations.[57] Thus, the elders were the pastors of local churches and the deacons took care of the charity funds for these churches. The confession that deals clearly with this subject is the Orthodox Creed, dating 1679. Article 31 it lists three officers appointed by Christ, namely: “Bishops, or Messengers; and Elders, or Pastors; and Deacons, or Overseers of the poor.”[58] In Brazil, for over 100 years, North-American missionaries acted as executives in various fields in each state, with a position that was no different from that attributed to the messengers of the General Baptists of the 17th century. 2.4 Ministerial Remuneration The subject of pastoral salary has been the motive of many discussions in assemblies, having been defined in some confessions. The Particular Baptists, different from the General Baptists, favored just remuneration for ministers. The first London Confession, of 1644, of the Particular Baptists, in Article 38, based on texts such as I Timothy 5:17-18 and Philippians 4:15-16, mention the Biblical expression that those who preach the Gospel should draw their sustenance from their work ministering and teaching the Gospel and that without consternation.[59] In 1656, the Somerset Confession, also Particular Baptist, says “that such a ministry labouring in the Word and doctrine, have a power to receive a livelihood of their brethren, whose duty is to provide a comfortable subsistence for them.”[60] In the Second London Confession, dating 1677, they confirm this position saying that the ministers “may have a comfortable supply, without being themselves entangled in Secular Affairs.”[61] The confession of the General Baptists, called The Faith and Practice of Thirty Congregations,[62] of 1651, regarding the ministers of Christ, affirms in Article 60 that their maintenance “ought to be the free and Charitable Benevolence, of the cheerful contribution of those that acknowledge themselves members of the same fellowship.”[63] In the following article, based on I Corinthians 4:12, the statement is that “the Ministers of the Gospel, ought to be content with the necessary food and rayment, and to labour with their hands, that they may not be overchargeable.” In The Standard Confession,[64] dating 1660, the General Baptists affirm “that the Ministers of Christ, that have freely received from God, ought freely to Minister to others.”[65] On the other hand, the Orthodox Creed, of 1679, also of the General Baptists, in Article 31, deals with an honorable maintenance for bishops and elders, and that “this maintenance is to be given out of the labours, profits, and estates of the people…”[66] 2.5 Deaconesses The activity of women as deaconesses among Brazilian Baptists generated much discussion in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Today, however, most every church has deaconesses among its officers. At this time the discussion is entwined around the subject of women’s pastoral activities, although there are already women pastors in the Brazilian Baptist Convention, in at least five states of Brazil.[67] It is interesting to notice how open the first Baptist pastor, John Smyth was; In his Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles[68] (the first to be written before his effective separation from Helwys, and probably drawn up in 1609), he mentions “deacons, men and widows, who attend to the affairs of the poor and sick brethren.”[69] Opposing this view, Thomas Helwys, in his Declaration of Faith, dated 1611, stated in Article 20: “That the Officers off everie Church or congregation are either Elders, […] or Deacons Men, and Women who by their office releave the necessities off the poore and impotent brethren concerning their bodies.”[70] 2.6 Sacrament or Ordinance In the beginning, the term “sacrament,” today totally rejected by the Baptists, was used in some of the first faith confessions presented by General Baptist leaders of the past. John Smyth, in his Short Confession of Faith in XX Articles, of 1609, affirms in Article 16: “That the ministers of the church are, not only bishops (‘Episcopos’), to whom the power is given of dispensing both the Word and the sacraments, but also deacons.”[71]It is interesting to observe that those who went along with Smyth, in 1612, in the 100 article document which came to be known as Propositions and Conclusions[72] also used the term sacrament in Article 75, but before, in Article 73, affirms “that the outward baptism and supper do not confer, and convey grace and regeneration to the participants or communicants.”[73] Thomas Helwys also takes the same position of his ex-companion when, in 1610, he wrote his Short Confession of Faith.[74] In Article 28 he says “there are two sacraments appointed by Christ, in his holy church, the administration whereof he [Christ] hath assigned to the ministry of teaching, namely Holy Baptism and Holy Supper.”[75] After his separation from John Smyth, in his Declaration of Faith, dated 1611, the expression “sacrament” is not mentioned. He defines in very clear terms his position as to baptism of believers in Article 14, when he also wrote: “That Baptisme or washing with Water, is the outward manifestacion off dieing vnto sinn, and walkeing in newness off life.”[76] As for communion, in Article 15 he says that “the outward manifestation off the Spiritual communion betweene CHRIST and the faith mutuallie […], to declare his death vntil he come.”[77] Later on, another General Baptist document uses the term “sacrament” although it also mentions the term “ordinances” for the water baptism and holy communion, demonstrating that there still was a certain confusion as to this matter. Referring to the Orthodox Creed of 1678, Article 27 says: “these two sacraments, viz. Baptism, and the Lord’s-supper, are ordinances of positive, sovereign, and holy institution, appointed by the Lord Jesus Christ, the only lawgiver, to be continued in his church, to the end of the world.”[78] It is interesting to observe that, in spite of being an Arminian confession, the affirmation referring to the two ordinances is a repetition of what the Particular Baptists (Calvinists) affirmed one year earlier. Actually, the theological preoccupation of confirming the divinity and the humanity of Christ made it easy to forget theological divergences with the Particular Baptists, and the document demonstrates an aligning of the two groups of Baptists by the end of the 17th century. Even before the General Baptists presented their Orthodox Creed, Particular Baptists started using the term “ordinance” for baptism. This occurred in the First London Confession in the expression: “That Baptisme is an ordinance of the New Testament, given by Christ, to be dispensed onely upon persons professing faith, or that are Disciples, or taught, who upon a profession of faith, ought to be baptized.”[79] In 1677, in the so-calledSecond Confession of Faith, Article 28, the term ordinance is repeated, giving the idea that it was already used normally by Particular Baptists: “Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ordinances of a positive, and sovereign institution: appointed by the Lord Jesus the only Law-giver, to be continued in his Church to the end of the world.”[80] In Article 30 of the same document, the term ordinance is repeated for the Holy Communion, condemning transubstantiation and affirming that it is only a memorial.