Featured Must we be "Baptist"?

This is just something I was pondering and wanted to see others opinions.
The people known as Baptists have only existed a few hundred years. However those holding to the the doctrines Baptists teach have existed since the days of the apostles. Where are they now? Most are footnotes in history as they compromised in one area or overly focused on another and thus lost the true faith once delivered to the saints. A remnant moved on and are know known as Baptists.
The question is: Which is more important the doctrine or the Baptist name?
If a majority of Baptist congregations were to compromise on an essential doctrine would you be willing to abandon the Baptist name to preserve the doctrines that we currently prize so highly?

 

Amen to that. I have heard some say that Baptist must be on our churches so folks know what we believe and this is a good thing now. I was wondering if they would be willing to remove the name from their church if Baptists began to be associated with some heretical belief. I.E. denying virgin birth or physical resurrection of Christ.

 

Re: #3
So in your opinion only for this scenario of doctrinal departure, FBC Dallas should rename itself the Church at Dallas in order to more clearly articulate its orthodox beliefs?

 

Re:#6
Ok. Let me try to narrow the focus of the discussion. Baptists are so named due to several distinctives (3-7 depending on who you ask). Please don't start to debate the distinctives.These distinctives are not the same as orthodox doctrine like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of the Lord. This is why Baptists can honestly say there are true believers, brethren, in every denomination as they would hold to true doctrine but they are not Baptist as they do not hold Baptist distinctives (church governance for example).
So if Baptist Churches, those who have these distinctives, became associated with corrupt doctrine. Could the name Baptist be dropped and a new name taken in order to preserve the distinctives with a name unsullied by corrupt doctrine?

 

MB. Posts #6&9. I think I understand what you are intending. Autonomy certainly allows for differing practices and characteristics from church to church.
By the way this is the beauty of local church autonomy and why it would take a mass departure from the Word to sully the name Baptist. My real question is IF this happened could you see you or your church depart from the title Bpatist?

Yeshua1 post#8. I see it the same but in reverse. The Jerusalem church didn't hold Baptist doctrine rather Baptists hold to the doctrine of the early church. Either way this still leaves open the possibility to abandon the name to be true to the Truth. I know we have not reached that place but in anyones mind could it come to that? Would you be willing to make that decision?

 

JonC #17
I agree with the distinctive part. Please see my post #7. I guess that is why it is so hard to discuss this as everyone has a particular way they look at the name.
Could we agree that the world (even the religious world) sees baptists and its varied subgroups as a denomination(s)?
If so the name would matter to skeptics and seekers alike. Should my scenario in posts 1 and 7 infiltrate enough congregations to sully the publics perception of the current name on these "baptist" signs or websites would it be wise to drop the then rightfully offensive name?
Again to all. I know this is far fetched. I just wondered how tightly we would hold on to the baptist descriptor in a series of events like I have tried to describe.
Thank you for your patience and participation.