Must we be "Baptist"?

[Washad]

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?

 

[MB]

Baptist is the name but not the focus and not the only name to focus on Jesus Christ. If there were no Baptist I'd still worship Christ
MB

 

[37818]

Baptist meaing what? New Testament Christian. In the New Testament churches were named after the local. Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia . . . .

 

[Washad]

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.

 

[Washad]

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?

 

[MB]

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?

I don't know that much about other Churches but "Baptist" doesn't really mean what they believe. There are many different types of Baptist.
MB

 

[Washad]

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

What is important is the theology taught and held, not actual name on building, as the original Church in Jerusalem held to Baptist theology, but not called the First Baptist Church of Jerusalem !

 

[MB]

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?

Actually the name"Baptist" Does not point out any particular distinctive. I could go to many different types of Baptist churches and never find one that matches 100% the one I go to regularly.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually the name"Baptist" Does not point out any particular distinctive. I could go to many different types of Baptist churches and never find one that matches 100% the one I go to regularly.
MB

well, there are Calvinist/free will, charismatic and non charismatic etc so point well taken!

 

[Washad]

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?

 

[tyndale1946]

Actually the name"Baptist" Does not point out any particular distinctive. I could go to many different types of Baptist churches and never find one that matches 100% the one I go to regularly.
MB

We are Baptist because that's who were are!... I'm a particular type of Baptist... I am an Old Line Sovereign Grace Primitive Baptist... How can someone who embraces the Total Depravity of Calvinist Baptist which is an essential doctrine, compromise this doctrine with Baptist who are free-willers?... Can you mix the Sovereign Grace of God and the works of man?... Brethren its NEVER going to happen?

That is why there are so many isims, schisms, splits and divisions... And NEVER the twain shall meet... I have been watching for almost twenty years on here this interaction between them and I know whereof I speak... Hobie should check his Baptist history and then maybe he would understand why there are so many, and why they cannot worship together... You will NEVER see Primitive which I am, Calvinist which some other are and Free-will Baptist holding hands around the camp fire singing Kumbaya... Brother Glen

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

My church is called Stony creek, and though we are associated with great lakes Baptists, that title nowhere in our docs!

 

[MB]

We are Baptist because that's who were are!... I'm a particular type of Baptist... I am an Old Line Sovereign Grace Primitive Baptist... How can someone who embraces the Total Depravity of Calvinist Baptist which is an essential doctrine, compromise this doctrine with Baptist who are free-willers?... Can you mix the Sovereign Grace of God and the works of man?... Brethren its NEVER going to happen?

Actually God does mix His grace with men. It is by and through His grace that we minister at all.

That is why there are so many isims, schisms, splits and divisions... And NEVER the twain shall meet... I have been watching for almost twenty years on here this interaction between them and I know whereof I speak... Hobie should check his Baptist history and then maybe he would understand why there are so many, and why they cannot worship together... You will NEVER see Primitive which I am, Calvinist which some other are and Free-will Baptist holding hands around the camp fire singing Kumbaya... Brother Glen

This is true we don't agree on much of anything except that Jesus saves.
MB

 

[Jerome]

My church is called Stony creek, and though we are associated with great lakes Baptists, that title nowhere in our docs!

Huh?
Stony Creek Church website:

Stony Creek Church belongs to the North American Baptist Conference (or NAB).

 

[Yeshua1]

Huh?
Stony Creek Church website:

That is the parent group, the local chapter is under Great lakes Baptist!

 

[JonC]

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?

Baptists have existed throughout the history of the church. You have to remember that the term "baptist" is a distinctive and not a denomination. Scripture presents people as believing and then being baptized and added to the church. That is the primary distinction here.

 

[Washad]

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.

 

[JonC]

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.

We can agree. I am a Southern Baptist which is a denomination.

 

[Salty]

That is the parent group, the local chapter is under Great lakes Baptist!

Under Great Lakes.... boy when you immerse - you really immerse!