Baptists and Baptism Lite

“Baptism has been secularized; God, for all intents and purposes, is shuffled to the sidelines. The entire focus is on what those being baptized are doing. They are taking a step of obedience to God, and they are publicly professing their faith. But what, if anything, was God, who we know best in Jesus Christ, doing? Was God involved at all? Was God even present? If so, how, and what was he doing? Did baptism do anything? Or is baptism a matter that is entirely human, without any significant divine involvement?” Mark G. McKim, The Secularization of Baptism: How Baptists Took God out of Baptism, and How to Fix the Problem, Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2025

“The ordinances are a crucial part of what makes a church a church. When rightly understood, they present to the eye and the mouth a sensible gospel—a gospel that can be felt, seen, and tasted.” Josh Manley in “Who Should Administer the Ordinances?”

How singularly strange that many of the churches identified as “Baptist” possess an anemic and ambiguous view (and practice) of their most defining characteristic, baptism of believers by immersion!

It is theologically important. The Bible is our rule of faith and practice, and therefore the source of instruction on the meaning and practice of baptism. Baptism should follow the Bible, not modern secular philosophy. Baptism of the believer is important, but the God of the baptism of believers is the most important focus of biblical truth. Cf. Romans 11:36; 1 Peter 5:11; Revelation 4:11.

It is practically important. If the God of all the universe, who commanded baptism, is not involved in each baptism, then we become weak and sickly in the importance we place on it. Many modern Baptists try to “de-stress” baptism as much as possible – it doesn’t matter, it is not that important, it is okay for a believer to go through life unbaptized, and such like. This is ridiculous! Many professing Baptists live by a secular and deistic pattern, as if God has little involvement in the day-to-day matters of their lives. Acts 8:37-39; 1 Peter 3:21; Hebrews 8:5.

It is relationally important. The right heart, the right response, the right sincerity that moves the believers to identify initially, objectively, and publicly with their redeeming Lord. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity, with the Lord of the baptism and in the mode of baptism. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. Cf. John 4:24; Ephesians 4:5; 1 Corinthians 3:1-3.

In The Secularization of Baptism, McKim theorizes and demonstrates that “four factors led to the symbolic-only position becoming dominant. These were suspicion, in reaction to Roman Catholicism, of the idea of God revealing himself through the physical; the influence of the Enlightenment (and ‘embarrassment’ with claims that God could be acting in the world today); reaction against the Oxford Movement; and reaction against the understanding of baptism advocated by the Disciples of Christ (‘Campbellites’).”

Let me be clear. We Baptists believe that baptism is symbolic rather than salvific. I believe there is a bad tendency among some to go into a kind of sacramentalism on this issue. However, the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much is not the true Baptist position. Consider historically that the early American Baptist language on baptism was so strong that many of them initially mistook Alexander Campbell to be saying the same things they were. (Boy, were we fooled!) I fear that often modern Baptists just find it easier to adopt the it-is-only-a-symbol-and-does-not-matter-much attitude rather than do the hard work of carving out the middle position where the Bible stands. It is easy, and it fits the spirit of the age. And it is or can be hard work to explain it correctly. If you veer too far one way, it sounds like salvific sacramentalism. If you veer too far the other way, it sounds like anything, everything, and (mostly) nothing! It leads to many of the errors of modern day Baptists, from careless (e.g., not carefully requiring a sound profession of faith) to indiscreet (e.g., fire engine baptisteries and water slide baptisms). May God help us seek the old paths and walk therein.

Romans 6:3-6 ;Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

Christ through the front door

Philippians 2:5,9 Christ Jesus … God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...

1 Corinthians 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified…

Ephesians 3:21 unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus…

Many 21st-century American churches have an ABC focus – anything but Christ. On the right it may be separatist, conservative, and combative. On the left it may be welcoming, affirming, and transforming. In the middle it may be moderate, irenic, and ecumenical. Anything but Christ.

In my experience, the “run-of-the-mill” “Bible-believing” church likes to focus on things in the realm of entertainment and activity. We’ll get folks attention with a Super Bowl party, a Six Flags trip, or a Celebrity guest. Maybe a food and games festival. Then we’ll sneak Christ in the back door. 

Avoid such a church like you’d avoid the plague. Flee it like you’d flee the path of a raging storm. Ask for the old paths, where is the good way. Look for a church that seeks Christ in its prayers, worships Christ in its songs, and exalts Christ in its preaching. Look for a church that glorifies and magnifies his name. Look for a church that marches the Lord Jesus Christ in through the front door and seats him center stage for all to see. Avoid a church that smuggles him in under cover.

Seven aspects of church music

We might say that Colossians 3:16 expands the aspects of Christian singing to bring out seven things.

Colossians 3:16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

1. “Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom” The “devotional” aspect of Christian singing.
2. “teaching and …” The “educational” aspect of Christian singing. 
3. “… and admonishing” The “motivational” aspect of Christian singing.
4. “one another” The “congregational” aspect of Christian singing.
5. “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” The “biblical” aspect of Christian singing.
6. “singing with grace in your hearts” The “internal” aspect of Christian singing.
7. “singing with grace … to the Lord” The “vertical” aspect of Christian singing.

Four aspects of church music

Ephesians 5:19 speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;

1. “speaking to yourselves” The “congregational” aspect of Christian singing.
2. “in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs” The “biblical” aspect of Christian singing.
3. “singing and making melody in your heart” The “internal” aspect of Christian singing.
4. “singing and making melody … to the Lord” The “vertical” aspect of Christian singing.

Credobaptism

Introduction.

“Us simple folk” are more likely to refer to “believer’s baptism” or “believer’s immersion” than to credobaptism – but credobaptism is good terminology, and sits well across from the more common or popular term “pedobaptism.”

Credobaptism (from the Latin word credo meaning “I believe” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing only those who make a conscious credible profession of faith. Believer’s baptism.

Pedobaptism, or paeodobaptism (from the Greek word paido meaning “child” + baptism) is the practice of baptizing infants or small children (usually on the credit of their parents being believers). Infant baptism.

More important than the right terminology is the right theology. Credobaptism is right biblical orthodoxy (right belief), biblical orthopraxy (right practice), and biblical orthokardy (right heart). Orthodoxy is always essential for Orthopraxy (2 Timothy 3:16-17; Romans 3:4; James 1:22-25); Orthopraxy is always essential to Orthokardy (Hebrews 8:5; John 14:15); Orthokardy is always essential to Orthodoxy (John 4:24; 13:35; I Corinthians 13:1-3). 

Credobaptism is Biblical.[i]

The biblical theology, orthodoxy. Credobaptism fits the doctrine of salvation, soteriology, and the doctrine of the church, ecclesiology. Salvation is by grace through faith, with a good confession required prior to baptism. The church is a congregation made up of a regenerate (born again, believing) membership. No fuzzy math is needed to fit credobaptism with these theologies.

The biblical example, orthopraxy. Throughout the New Testament there are clear examples of the baptism of adults who responded in belief to the preaching of the gospel. This is indisputable, even by those who practice pedobaptism. Infant baptism is at best inferred – but the inferred passages do not stand up to scrutiny. See “Household Baptisms” and “Unbelieving spouses and unbaptized children.”

The biblical unity, orthokardy. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. In Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and much of the Protestant tradition, there are multiple baptisms – baptism of unknowing infants and baptism of professing believers; baptism by sprinkling, baptism by pouring, and baptism by immersion. The heart of the matter should dwell in unity.

Biblical theology and practice settle the matter. However, there are two supporting legs that fit properly into the biblical theology and practice.

Credobaptism is Practical.

The believing person submitting to baptism acts in a manner in response to God, answering a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).[ii] That person will understand the purpose of baptism (Acts 8:37), encounter the rite in an experiential way (Acts 8:38), and remember the experience (Acts 8:39). Both the conscience and conscious are involved. There will be no mental void where baptism is concerned. You will not have to be told by someone else that you were baptized. The baptism of believers is meet, fitting, “suited to every sinner’s case.”[iii]

Credobaptism is Historical. 

Credobaptism is the historic New Testament practice – and the historic practice of the early churches before the rite was corrupted. It continued to be historical in churches that practiced it, even when most others had departed from biblical faith and practice. 

In some of the early sources such as the Didache, believer’s baptism can be seen, even though little additions were beginning to creep in.[iv] For example, that the persons being baptized are volitional believers is assumed, in that they are commanded to fast before they were baptized (Didache, 7.4).

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus shows the build-up of non-biblical practice, while still maintaining a general baptismal base practice that arises from believer’s baptism. The catechumens were asked about their belief in God the Father, their belief in God the Son, and their belief in God the Holy Spirit.[v]

“That the churches of the post-apostolic age did not long remain faithful to apostolic precept and example in all respects [not just baptism, rlv] would be generally admitted.” (A History of Anti-Pedobaptism from the Rise of Pedobaptism to A.D. 1609, Albert Henry Newman, page 1)

Conclusion.

“Infant baptism was an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of the magical efficacy of water baptism itself to impart salvation. One countervailing error that slowed its introduction was the idea held and taught by some that ‘mortal sins’ committed after baptism could not be forgiven. Quite a reason to delay baptism to the expected end of life!”[vi]

This is not to say that every denomination that practices pedobaptism believes there is magical efficacy of salvation in the water. However, the origins of it are inexplicably tied to such superstitions, and the maintenance of the practice reveals a deficiency in applying sola scriptura to an extra-biblical, emotional, incremental, and traditional practice.

Credobaptism stands on solid ground. The Bible supports it. It is, unsurprisingly, universally recognized as scriptural by all Christian churches that practice some form of baptism. All other forms are on shifting sand.

---

[i] Most Bible students are forced to admit this – unless they have jettisoned baptism altogether. Baptism of believers is obvious, exampled, and necessary. Baptism of infants has no biblical example, is unnecessary, and must be extrapolated (after a fashion) from the old covenant circumcision.
[ii] The person about to submit to baptism or the person who has just been baptized is called a “baptizand.” That terminology is not in common use among most Baptists, at least in my experience.

[iii] Baptism is delayed until a credible profession of faith (credobaptism vs. pedobaptism) but not delayed after a credible profession of faith.
[iv] However, the additions likely were not in the original document.
[v] The three questions before baptism were: “Dost thou believe in God, the Father Almighty?” “Dost thou believe in Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Ghost, etc.?” “Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost…?” The baptizand was required to answer in the affirmative, “I believe.”
[vi] Source lost, unknown (Or else I wrote this, but I do not remember that I did.)

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura”

“Sola Scriptura” “Solo Scriptura” “Nuda Scriptura” “Nada Scriptura”

What is Sola Scriptura? Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase meaning “scripture alone.” It is a Christian bibliological doctrine. It means that the Bible is the sole source of authority (either explicitly or implicitly) for Christian faith and practice. If only the canonical Scriptures are completely inspired and the only encapsulation of all truth, then only the Scriptures are authoritative in a way nothing else is. “The scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice” has been a common way Baptists have stated their belief in the Bible.

On Facebook awhile back, Alexander Thomson wrote “there is a growing attempt to argue that ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not ‘Solo Scriptura; and that resort to Scripture-only proof is ‘Biblicism’.”

A cadre of evangelical theologians today like to contrast “Sola Scriptura” with phrases such as “Solo Scriptura” and “Nuda Scriptura” – or draw a hard line between only and alone (which, of course, are English synonyms). Some of them may merely be trying to correct radical errors of individualism.[i] Others, however, are watering down the strength of Sola Scriptura.[ii]

Jeremy D. Myers, a former pastor who would like to redeem Christians from their biblical faith and practice, defines “Solo Scriptura” thusly: “‘Solo’ Scriptura is the idea that we can learn all matters about faith and practice using the Bible alone, plus nothing else.”

Marty Foord, a lecturer at the Evangelical Theological College in Singapore tells us that “sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the only authority for believers.”

Canadian minister Lawson Murray expands the idea, claiming, “Protestant reformers made a distinction between the principles of ‘sola Scriptura’ (Scripture alone) and ‘nuda Scriptura’ (bare Scripture). ‘Sola Scriptura’ has to do with the sufficiency of Scripture as the Christian’s supreme authority in all spiritual matters. ‘Nuda Scriptura’ is the idea that the Bible is the Christian’s only theological authority in all spiritual matters. The best transliteration for ‘nuda Scriptura today is ‘solo Scriptura’ (just me and my Bible).”[iii]

Greek Orthodox Archpriest Andrew Stephen Damick (who doesn’t believe in either sola or solo) piles on against the “Protestants,” writing, “Solo scriptura, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything.” In the end he concludes, “this ‘sola’ vs. ‘solo’ business is really a distinction without a difference” and that “sola” is really “just a better-read version” of “solo.” I sort of agree, though I would change “better-read” to “more sophisticated.”[iv] After receiving a thoroughly “liberal” education, some want a more sophisticated way to explain Sola Scriptura. They elevate themselves above being so simple in belief as to receive the phrase from a children’s song, “the Bible tells me so.” (Cf. Matthew 18:1-4.)

Many “Protestants” now nuance the terminology. They may argue that the Bible is not the “only authority,” just the “supreme authority.” It is not the “sole authority,” but “an authority” (or “final authority”) above other “lesser” authorities.[v] 

We do not (and should not) reject the teaching of God’s people in his churches through the years, neither what someone has written in a commentary or theological book, nor how the Holy Spirit has led someone else to understand the passage – but we still stand on “Scripture alone,” “Only Scripture,” and/or any or whatever term means that the only authority for our faith and practice is found in the Bible. The book of Acts extols the virtues of the Bereans, who would not take the word of an apostle, if such word did not agree with Scripture (Acts 17:11). The Bible trumps every Roman pope and every little Baptist “pope.” It is above all of them, the one and only and final authority. We do not use the Scriptures as our “sole resource” – but it is the “sole recourse.” There is no higher court of appeal.

If we do not believe that the Scriptures, inspired by God, throughly furnishes us with all we need for every good work, including doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16-17), then we have gone over to the other side![vi]

Beware of the new nuancers. The nuancing of the term “Sola Scriptura” is an admission that the term is not “sufficient” and may even suggest that those nuancing the term do not really believe the Scriptures themselves are sufficient! In the end, the fight against “Sola Scriptura” or “Solo Scriptura” may leave us with “Nada Scriptura.”[vii]

---

[i] Radical individualism rejects the study and interpretation of the Bible from within the gathered church community and installs it in the “Lone Ranger” Christian – making such an one his own authority. Sola Scriptura includes interpreting the Scriptures in the church community as guided by the Holy Spirit. It does not make either the individual or the church supreme.
[ii] “Sola Scriptura simply means that all truth necessary for our salvation and spiritual life is taught either explicitly or implicitly in Scripture. It is not a claim that all truth of every kind is found in Scripture. The most ardent defender of sola Scriptura will concede, for example, that Scripture has little or nothing to say about DNA structures, microbiology, the rules of Chinese grammar, or rocket science.” I do not disagree with anything here by John McArthur, but I wonder why he found it necessary to write it. Which advocate of Sola Scriptura is arguing that we should go to the Bible to learn the rules of Chinese grammar, for example?
[iii] He did not cite any Reformer or Radical Reformer who used this term positively. I get the impression that it is primarily a new term to try to encapsulate an older idea. It does seem that Calvin may have at least once used “ex nudis scripturis” to describe depending on the scripture alone (Concerning Scandals, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978, p. 18). Anabaptist/Baptist leaders (if properly understood) might well be described as holding a sort of “Nuda Scriptura” view without appealing to such terminology (i.e., correctly understanding that “Sola Scriptura” demonstrates their belief). Additionally, the reason many of these teachers did not accept the traditions of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches is not because they totally rejected any continuity of teaching the Bible. Rather it was because they rejected the Catholic and Orthodox as being part of that continuity; that is, they are not true churches in the New Testament sense.
[iv] This may be seen in those who argue for replacing “sola” with “prima.” Are they not tacitly admitting they do not even believe “Sola Scriptura” – or at least that they think “sola” and “solo” are equivalent terms.
[v] If it is the “final authority” then it is the “sole authority” – other things called authorities are not authorities, merely servants or helps.
[vi] Many “highly educated” students are coming out of Baptist and Protestant seminaries with the idea that the Bible itself does not teach Sola Scriptura. Consider the teaching and implications of these texts: Deuteronomy 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19, do not add to or take away from God’s word; Psalm 119:89, God’s word is settled, forever; Isaiah 8:20, for truth and light, we must speak according to the word; Mark 7:6-9, the traditions of men vs. the commandments of God; Romans 10:17, the word is foundational to our faith; 1 Corinthians 4:6, do not think above what is written; Galatians 1:8, there is only one gospel, not many; Ephesians 6:17, the word of God is the sword of the Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:21, we have the resource to prove all things and hold fast the truth; 2 Peter 1:3, we are given all things that pertain to life and godliness; Jude 3:5, the faith is once delivered; 1 John 4:1, the word necessary to try the spirits.
[vii] “Nothing Scripture,” that is, without any biblical authority. (Sorry for switching from Latin to Spanish. ... Not really.)

Worship

Worship defined: (verb) to render religious reverence and homage to God; to adore, pay honor and reverence to; to attend services of divine worship; (noun) the act of paying reverent honor, adoration, and homage to God; formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage.

In some languages the equivalent word for “worship” literally means “bend over,” “fall down (before),” or “bow down (before).”

Our English word “worship” comes from the Old English worthscipe, “worth” + suffix “–ship” – acknowledging one in the condition worthy of reverence and honor. 

• Worth: deserving honor, worthy, valued.
• -Ship: quality, condition, state, or relation.
• Worthship: condition of being worthy.
• Over time this becomes “reverence paid to Deity.”

The Bible does not give an explicit or formal definition of worship. The biblical view of worship must be discerned from the teachings on the subject throughout the Bible.

Preparing to worship

The principle of worship proceeds from the concept that there is someone worthy to be worshipped (and then that there is someone in a position to worship, render honor).

Worship is regulated by the one worshipped; in truth, John 4:24. Deut. 12:32

The Regulative Principle of Worship – Whatever is commanded in the Scriptures for the public worship of God is required, and whatever is not commanded is prohibited. This principle accepts that only God and not man ordains how he will be worshipped. Exodus 20:3-6.

Worship is responding from an inner heart movement; in spirit, John 4:24

• Fear before him
• Humble yourselves

We see that God is worthy of our submission and homage, (then) we give him our reverence and respect (then) we are ready to do service and offer sacrifice. Romans 12:1

The London Baptist and Philadelphia Baptist Confessions describe acceptable worship: “…the acceptable way of worshipping the true God, is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.”

In our doctrinal and position statements, our church declares “The sufficiency of Scripture for all matters of faith and practice,” which declarations insist that our worship is dictated by God to us through his Scripture.

• Psalm 29:2 Give unto the Lord the glory due unto his name; worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness.
• Psalm 95:6 O come, let us worship and bow down: let us kneel before the Lord our maker.
• Psalm 96:9 O worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness: fear before him, all the earth.
• Psalm 99:5 Exalt ye the Lord our God, and worship at his footstool; for he is holy.
• Revelation 4:10 the four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,
• Revelation 5:14 And the four beasts said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever.
• Revelation 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshipped God,

Reverential Anthem

Catholicity and Separation

I just read an article in which a conservative Calvinistic Southern Baptist trashed separatism and promoted catholicity. He reserved special attention for the “fundamentalist” brand of separatism. The author is not someone who moved from Fundamentalism to Liberalism, but rather someone who has moved from Fundamentalism to a Reformed position.

He makes some good points. Fundamentalism can exalt carnality, pride, and an “us four, no more” attitude. Their gospel is not broad enough or deep enough to save and sanctify anyone who does not dot their i’s and cross their t’s. Division over extremely exacting eschatological theories becomes the norm.

There is a right sort of “catholicity”[i] that chronologically sees across time and generations, knowing we belong to the same church institution as and adhere to the same gospel preached by the apostles.  It geographically reaches across continents, nations, and communities.[ii] It linguistically embraces different tongues and peoples. “…I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; and cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.”

Unfortunately, this sort of “catholicity” often embraces “Catholicism” as representative of the “true church” up until the time of the Protestant Reformation. It flies in the face of a New Testament Christianity that separated itself from infidelity, heresy, and immorality (e.g., 2 Corinthians 6:17; Titus 3:10; Ephesians 5:1-4). It distinguishes itself from and denies the poor and afflicted faithful martyrs of Jesus (e.g., Revelation 2:10, 13; 17:6). It recognizes the unorthodox majority and rejects the orthodox remnant.[iii] 

There is a right sort of “fundamentalism” that loves, seeks for, and adheres to the fundamental principles of the Bible, and the Christian religion based on it. It rejects compromise of those principles, while enthusiastically and evangelistically sowing those principles in the field of the world.

Unfortunately, strains of fundamentalism promote individuality to the detriment of the corporate nature of gathered believers (Romans 15:5-7; 1 Corinthians 12:12-27), as well as the fellowship of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17; 14:33). It minimizes the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:5-6).[iv] It elevates private interpretations as the norm to determine orthodoxy, fellowship, and separation (Mark 7:9; 2 Peter 1:20). It becomes a haven for little dictators.[v] 

Where does the middle way begin? Perhaps: The Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice. Autonomous churches that are guided by this belief about the Bible. A gospel that is to be preached to every creature. And strong doses of humility.

Both “Big F” Fundamentalism and “Big C” Catholicism miss the mark, in different directions. Let us take up our Bibles and learn the Bible way of the unity of the faith and separation unto the gospel of God.

---

[i] Recognizing that the words “catholic” and “catholicity” have a broader more generic meaning, I nevertheless generally avoid them as more likely to help rather than hurt the recognition of the Roman Catholic Church.

[ii] Human beings and local churches are limited by geography, but connect with other congregations across the globe through fellowship of the word and Spirit.
[iii] I am unable to read the Bible, see the New Testament church there, research church history, and then pretend that the only church that existed for 15 centuries was Roman Catholic! I have sadly heard too many Reformed brethren say so. Away with such.

[iv] “A keen awareness of where the church has always stood” is needed, if we also have the biblical insight to understand what the church is, biblically.
[v] On the other hand, Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy (and at least some species of Reformed churches) are havens for big dictators!

Three-fold church cord

A three-fold cord is not easily broken (Cf. Ecclesiastes 4:12). Three strong strands of the woven church cord are:

1. Orthodoxy – right belief
Believing the Bible and being faithful to its doctrines of the faith is a requirement of God's people. Who can say he loves God and not believe & keep His words? The word of God is given by inspiration of God (II Tim 3:16-17). The faithful Christian believes it and studies to show himself approved of God (II Tim 2:15). All doctrines and teachings are brought to its mirror to see whether these things are so (Acts 17:11).

2. Orthopraxy – right practice
The work of the church is summed up in what is best known as the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20). This summary is displayed fully in the New Testament in the recorded outworkings of the Holy Spirit through His church. New Testament Christianity means New Testament practice (I Cor. 11:2; 14:33). The faithful representing of Christ and the gospel to the world is faithful to the Word of God in the New Testament, which is our only rule of faith and practice (Acts 20:2027-28; II Tim. 4:2).

3. Orthokardy – right heart
If the heart of the matter is not right, our doctrine and practice is merely a noisy racket that is annoying and unappealing (I Cor. 13:1-3). A supreme evidence of genuine Christianity is the love of brothers and sisters in Christ (John 13:35; I John 3:14). The “local church” (gathered congregation) is not just an important doctrine -- it is a functioning reality. The true heart of love spills out in committed fellowship for and blessed unity with one another.

Too often we try to make the cord with one strand, or two at the most. May God help us not weave amiss.

[Note: “orthokardy” suggested by Francis Shaeffer's “orthokardia of community” via Trevin Wax.]