Do You Know the Baptist Distinctives?

[Van]

From the internet,

2. Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church’s beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a “member” of any other body. (
Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, 19, 23)​

This Baptist Distinctive addresses church polity or how our local church is governed. The biblical view is that the members vote to elect 'leaders" whether we call them deacons, elders, pastors or trustees. The governing board, then leads the church in day to day activities, but periodically reports to the members. The tension arises when the leaders usurp power and the church becomes a "top down" organization where leaders are only accountable to themselves or other leaders in the bureaucracy.

 

[Van]

Due to poor translation, some Bible readers are unaware that leaders were elected by a show of hands of the members, the assembly of those called out of darkness into the kingdom. See Acts 14:23 and 2 Corinthians 8:19. The word translated as appointed (or chosen or ordained) is "cheirotoneō" ( G5500 ) and means to vote by stretching out the hand.

 

[John of Japan]

From the internet.

​

"1. Biblical Authority​

The Bible is the final authority in all matters of belief and practice because the Bible is inspired by God and bears the absolute authority of God Himself. Whatever the Bible affirms, Baptists accept as true. No human opinion or decree of any church group can override the Bible. Even creeds and confessions of faith, which attempt to articulate the theology of Scripture, do not carry Scripture’s inherent authority. (
2 Timothy 3:15-17; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20-21)" ​

Here we have a pretty sound distinctive. However it does not address non-inspired transmission (making copies of copies over time) or uninspired translation (from the original languages into the user language). Many Baptists believe the original autographs were inerrant as far as message is concerned, and that our existing copies of the original language texts are trustworthy and reliable. Additionally we believe the well respected translations are trustworthy and reliable.

"From the Internet" is not sufficient sourcing. Come on, Van, we've been through this before.

 

[atpollard]

2. Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church’s beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a “member” of any other body. (
Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, 19, 23)

2. Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church’s beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a “member” of any other body. (
Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, 19, 23)

- From What is a Baptist [link]

Does that help?

 

[atpollard]

Since the quote on "Autonomy" came from the "B.A.P.T.I.S.T.S." acrostic, I thought this article on the origin and spread of the acrostic might be useful:

Who Invented the B.A.P.T.I.S.T. Distinctives? [link]​

January 1, 2011

Who invented the BAPTIST distinctives? Careful now—we hope the reader did not answer “John the Baptist.”
Baptist beliefs developed during the 1600s in several different places, led by local congregations that were eventually named “Baptist” by detractors who sought to discredit the growing movement. While Baptists hold to some doctrinal ideas that are common to all true Christians (such as the Trinity), we also believe in “distinctives,” specific doctrinal beliefs that are unique to Baptists. And if you grew up in a Regular Baptist church, you were probably taught these beliefs with a simple acrostic of eight brief phrases spelling the word “Baptists.”

This teaching method has become so popular that its origins are often forgotten—and tracking down a “first” claim can be tricky and controversial. Who was the first person to invent an automobile? (Careful! Don’t say Henry Ford.) Or who was the first person to invent the computer? (Not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.) While some readers will view the acrostic as being so ubiquitous that it has no real origin, the Baptist Bulletin is wading into the fray here to offer its correction to the historical record.

The BAPTISTS acrostic was developed in the early 1960s by L. Duane Brown when he was pastor of Pine Valley Baptist Church, Pine Valley, N.Y. Brown was a graduate of Baptist Bible Seminary, where he studied theology with Paul R. Jackson. The following account is from Brown’s recently released memoir, My Cup Runneth Over:

While pastoring at Pine Valley Baptist Church, I prepared a systematic lesson plan about the Baptist distinctives designed for thirteen lessons (a Sunday School quarterly). One of the dear ladies in the church, Esther Munson, suggested I set up these Baptist distinctives in an acrostic of the word BAPTISTS. It was mimeographed for Sunday School. I eventually set the acrostic on the plural BAPTISTS as I settled on eight distinctives (doctrine) that historically all Baptists held. A teacher at Baptist Bible Seminary requested copies for his class. Soon requests came from all over.

Brown left Pine Valley Baptist Church to complete his PhD at Bob Jones University, graduating in 1965. He was then called as state representative for New York’s Empire State Fellowship of Regular Baptist Churches. Still receiving requests for his mimeographed copy, Brown decided to have his material printed as a booklet, which he published and copyrighted in 1969. The book became so popular among Regular Baptists that RBP editor Jim Dersham asked Brown for permission to print an edition of the book, leading to the updated edition released by RBP in 1987. After it fell out of print with RBP, Brown continued to publish the book himself (still available at www.drbrownbooks.com). Brown reports 65,000 copies have been printed in English, and the book has been translated into 20 languages.

Brown’s acrostic has roots in Paul Jackson’s summary of the Baptist distinctives, published in Doctrine of the Church (1956) and his later full length book, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (1968). Jackson’s outline is quite similar to what became Brown’s acrostic, but interestingly, Jackson never used the BAPTISTS acrostic in print. And though Regular Baptist Press published Brown’s acrostic in The Biblical Beliefs of Baptists, we did not always properly credit Brown when using his acrostic for other Sunday School lessons we published (a mistake we will correct in future editions).

There is some indication that Duane Brown’s BAPTISTS acrostic is gaining popularity in broader Baptist circles. In 1985 Stanley Grenz used the acrostic in his well-known book on polity, The Baptist Congregation. In a similar way, Joe Early Jr. used the acrostic in his introduction to The Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys. But neither book offers attribution for the acrostic’s source!

Is the acrostic still an effective teaching tool? When a teaching method becomes wildly popular, it often attracts criticism and reevaluation. Colin Smith addressed this in a recent Baptist Bulletin article, “Where’s the ‘C’ in the Baptist Distinctives?” (July/August 2008, available online at BaptistBulletin.org). Smith suggests that we should not confuse a teaching method with a theological system. And a teaching method that works very well in a local church setting may not be equally effective with seminary students and church leaders. This need for advanced works on Baptist theology is what motivates the new series of books from Regular Baptist Press.

B Biblical Authority
A Autonomy of the Local Church
P Priesthood of the Believer
T Two Ordinances
I Individual Soul Liberty
S Saved Church Membership
T Two Officers
S Separation of Church and State

This article was published in the January/February 2011 Baptist Bulletin.

 

[John of Japan]

Since the quote on "Autonomy" came from the "B.A,P.T.I.S.T.S." acrostic, I thought this article on the origin and spread of the acrostic might be useful:

Who Invented the B.A.P.T.I.S.T. Distinctives?​

January 1, 2011
Who invented the BAPTIST distinctives? Careful now—we hope the reader did not answer “John the Baptist.”
Baptist beliefs developed during the 1600s in several different places, led by local congregations that were eventually named “Baptist” by detractors who sought to discredit the growing movement. While Baptists hold to some doctrinal ideas that are common to all true Christians (such as the Trinity), we also believe in “distinctives,” specific doctrinal beliefs that are unique to Baptists. And if you grew up in a Regular Baptist church, you were probably taught these beliefs with a simple acrostic of eight brief phrases spelling the word “Baptists.”
This teaching method has become so popular that its origins are often forgotten—and tracking down a “first” claim can be tricky and controversial. Who was the first person to invent an automobile? (Careful! Don’t say Henry Ford.) Or who was the first person to invent the computer? (Not Steve Jobs or Bill Gates.) While some readers will view the acrostic as being so ubiquitous that it has no real origin, the Baptist Bulletin is wading into the fray here to offer its correction to the historical record.
The BAPTISTS acrostic was developed in the early 1960s by L. Duane Brown when he was pastor of Pine Valley Baptist Church, Pine Valley, N.Y. Brown was a graduate of Baptist Bible Seminary, where he studied theology with Paul R. Jackson. The following account is from Brown’s recently released memoir, My Cup Runneth Over:

Brown left Pine Valley Baptist Church to complete his PhD at Bob Jones University, graduating in 1965. He was then called as state representative for New York’s Empire State Fellowship of Regular Baptist Churches. Still receiving requests for his mimeographed copy, Brown decided to have his material printed as a booklet, which he published and copyrighted in 1969. The book became so popular among Regular Baptists that RBP editor Jim Dersham asked Brown for permission to print an edition of the book, leading to the updated edition released by RBP in 1987. After it fell out of print with RBP, Brown continued to publish the book himself (still available at www.drbrownbooks.com). Brown reports 65,000 copies have been printed in English, and the book has been translated into 20 languages.
Brown’s acrostic has roots in Paul Jackson’s summary of the Baptist distinctives, published in Doctrine of the Church (1956) and his later full length book, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church (1968). Jackson’s outline is quite similar to what became Brown’s acrostic, but interestingly, Jackson never used the BAPTISTS acrostic in print. And though Regular Baptist Press published Brown’s acrostic in The Biblical Beliefs of Baptists, we did not always properly credit Brown when using his acrostic for other Sunday School lessons we published (a mistake we will correct in future editions).
There is some indication that Duane Brown’s BAPTISTS acrostic is gaining popularity in broader Baptist circles. In 1985 Stanley Grenz used the acrostic in his well-known book on polity, The Baptist Congregation. In a similar way, Joe Early Jr. used the acrostic in his introduction to The Life and Writings of Thomas Helwys. But neither book offers attribution for the acrostic’s source!
Is the acrostic still an effective teaching tool? When a teaching method becomes wildly popular, it often attracts criticism and reevaluation. Colin Smith addressed this in a recent Baptist Bulletin article, “Where’s the ‘C’ in the Baptist Distinctives?” (July/August 2008, available online at BaptistBulletin.org). Smith suggests that we should not confuse a teaching method with a theological system. And a teaching method that works very well in a local church setting may not be equally effective with seminary students and church leaders. This need for advanced works on Baptist theology is what motivates the new series of books from Regular Baptist Press.
B Biblical Authority
A Autonomy of the Local Church
P Priesthood of the Believer
T Two Ordinances
I Individual Soul Liberty
S Saved Church Membership
T Two Officers
S Separation of Church and State
This article was published in the January/February 2011 Baptist Bulletin.

Good post. I have Jackson's second book from 1968, which is very good:

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Augustine

Augustine certainly was partially influential to Calvin in some areas, I'm sure.

Probably some that were too bad, if I remember and find out what they were in my notes.

That's called, "I'll have to check and see 'what I believe' on that."

 

[Martin Marprelate]

According to an article in the "Sword and Trowel" in 1869, Spurgeon's younger brother James was Assistant Pastor at the Metropolitan Tabernacle and there were nine deacons and 26 (!) elders. At that time, the church had 3,860 members.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

There is no Baptist (under any name) in Christian history prior to the Refornation that a theology even remotely related to Calvinism.

You're leaving out all of the Doctrines of Grace throughout the Old Testament,
as well as in all of the New Testament Books, and as thoroughly covered by the Early church fathers,

and;

"STATEMENTS FROM RELIABLE HISTORIANS."

"Able historians, not Baptists, have made statements which confirm the assertions of Baptists that Baptist churches can trace their existence (as having existed at any given point throughout history) from the present back to Christ and the apostles.

"Hear the following:

"MOSHEIM (Lutheran): 'Before the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay secreted in almost all the countries of Europe persons who adhered tenaciously to the principles of modern Dutch Baptists" (Baptist Church Perpetuity, W.A. Jarrel, p. 311).

"ZWINGLI (Reformer): "The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hundred years past has caused great disturbance in the church, and has such a strength that the attempt to contend against it in this age appeared for a time futile" (Ibid., pp. 302-303).

"NEWTON (philosopher): "The modern Baptists formerly called Anabaptists are the only people that never symbolyzed with the papacy" (Ibid. p. 313).

"RIDPATH (Methodist): "I should not readily admit that there were Baptist churches as far back as A.D. 100, although without doubt there were Baptists then, as all Christians were then Baptists" (Ibid., p. 59).

"YPEIJ and DERMOUT (Dutch Reformed): "We have already seen that the Baptists--those who in former times were named Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites--were originally Waldenses, the men who in the history of the church, in time so far back, have obtained a well-deserved renown. In consequence, the Baptists may be regarded as being from of old the only religious 'denomination' that have continued from the times of the Apostles, as a Christian society who have kept the evangelical faith pure through all the ages hitherto" (Ibid., p. 315).

"ALEXANDER CAMPBELL (Church of Christ): "... from the apostolic age, to the present time, the sentiments of Baptists, and the practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced" (Macalla-Campbell Debate, pp. 378-379).

"CARDINAL HOSSIUS (Catholic): "If the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheerfulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinions and persuasions of no sect can be truer or surer than those of the Anabaptists; since there have been none for these twelve hundred years past that have been more grievously punished" (Concise History of the Baptists, Orchard, p. 364).

"Hossius also said, "The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect, of which kind the Waldensian brethren seem to have been. Nor is this heresy a modern thing -- for it existed in the time of Austin" (Baptist Church Perpetuity, Jarrel, p. 308).

"These quotations could be multiplied, but this is unnecessary.

"The Enemies of Baptists have made these Statements
which Verify the Antiquity of Baptists."

And that their teachings were Baptist Doctrine throughout the ages, since the time of the First Baptist, The Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

There is no Baptist (under any name) in Christian history prior to the Refornation that a theology even remotely related to Calvinism.

For example, The Doctrines of Grace are shown in the Old Testament from this Google AI Overview;

"The Doctrines of Grace, often associated with Calvinism (TULIP), are indeed reflected in the Old Testament,
showcasing God's sovereign grace in salvation history long before the New Testament.

"While the explicit articulation of these doctrines may be more prominent in later theological systems,
the Old Testament reveals God's gracious actions and character, laying the foundation for these core theological concepts.

"Here's a breakdown of how the Old Testament demonstrates the Doctrines of Grace:

"1. Total Depravity/Radical Corruption: The Old Testament consistently portrays humanity's sinfulness and fallen nature,
highlighting their inability to save themselves. From the Fall in Genesis to the repeated cycles of rebellion and judgment in Israel's history,
the Old Testament reveals a pervasive human tendency toward sin and separation from God.

• Example:
  The story of Adam and Eve in Genesis 3 demonstrates the consequences of sin and humanity's inherent inclination toward disobedience.
  
  
• Example:
  The repeated accounts of Israel's idolatry and unfaithfulness throughout the Old Testament
• underscore their inability to consistently obey God's law.

"2. Unconditional Election/Sovereign Choice:
The Old Testament shows God choosing specific individuals and nations for his purposes, often apart from any merit on their part.
This election is based solely on God's sovereign will and grace, not on any foreseen good works or qualities.

• Example:
  "God's choice of Abraham as the father of his chosen people, the Israelites, and his subsequent covenant with him, demonstrates God's sovereign election.
• Example:
  "God's selection of David, a young shepherd, to be king over Israel, despite his humble origins and his brothers' perceived qualifications, highlights God's sovereign choice.

"3. Definite Atonement/Particular Redemption: While the concept of a universal atonement is also present, the Old Testament foreshadows the idea that Christ's sacrifice would specifically secure the salvation of the elect. Sacrificial systems in the Old Testament point to the need for atonement for sin, and God's provision of atonement through the death of animals foreshadows the ultimate sacrifice of Christ for his chosen people.

• Example:
  "The Passover lamb, whose blood protected the Israelites from the angel of death, symbolizes the substitutionary sacrifice that would later be fulfilled by Christ.
• Example:
  "The scapegoat, which symbolically bore the sins of the people, points towards the future reality of Christ taking the sins of his people upon himself.

"4. "Irresistible Grace/Effectual Calling: The Old Testament reveals instances where God's grace powerfully and effectively calls individuals to himself, overcoming their resistance and bringing them into relationship with him.

• Example:
  "God's call to prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah, and their subsequent obedience, even in the face of opposition, demonstrates God's powerful work in their lives.
  
  
• Example:
  "The conversion of Saul to Paul, a fierce persecutor of Christians, to a devoted apostle, showcases God's irresistible grace.

"5. Perseverance of the Saints/Preservation: The Old Testament shows God's faithfulness in preserving his people, even when they falter and sin. This preservation is not based on their own merits but on God's unwavering covenant love and faithfulness.

• Example:
  "God's continued covenant with Israel despite their repeated rebellions demonstrates his faithfulness and preservation of his chosen people.
• Example:
  "God's promise to preserve a remnant of Israel through exile and restoration highlights his commitment to his people.

"Therefore, while the Old Testament may not explicitly use the language of "Doctrines of Grace" or "TULIP", it provides a rich tapestry of narratives and theological insights that form the foundation for these core Reformed doctrines."

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

There is no Baptist (under any name) in Christian history prior to the Refornation that a theology even remotely related to Calvinism.

In his "Body of Doctrinal & Practical and Doctrinal Divinity,
By John Gill, Book 4, Chapter 1":
"Of the Manifestation and Administration of the Covenant of Grace,"​

there is a section here where he talks about the agreement between the Old Testament and the New Testament
and covers The Covenant of Grace, especially concerning the Blessing of Grace, in point '1e.', below;

"The Agreement there is between the Old Testament and the New Testament;

"1a. They Agree in the Efficient Cause, God: the Covenant of Grace, in its Original Constitution in Eternity, is of God,
and therefore it is called His Covenant, being Made by Him; "I have Made a Covenant--My Covenant I will not break", #Ps 89:3,34

"and whenever any Exhibition or Manifestation of this Covenant was made to any of the Patriarchs, as to Abraham, David, &c.
it is ascribed to God, "I Will Make My Covenant--He hath Made with me an Everlasting Covenant", #Ge 17:2 2Sa 23:5
so the New Covenant, or New Administration of it, runs in this form, "I Will Make a New Covenant", &c. #Heb 8:8.

"1b. In the Moving Cause, the Sovereign Mercy, and Free Grace of God,
which Moved God to Make the Covenant of Grace at first, #Ps 89:2,3.

And every Exhibition of it under the Former Administration, is a rich display of it, and therefore it is called,
the "Mercy Promised to the fathers" in His "Holy Covenant", #Lu 1:72 and which has so largely appeared in the coming of Christ,
which is ascribed to "the Tender Mercy of our God", that "Grace" and "Truth", in the great abundance of them, are said to Come by Him;
by which names the Covenant of Grace, under the Gospel Administration, is called,
in distinction from that under the Mosaic one, #Lu 1:78 Joh 1:17.

"1c. In the Mediator, who is Christ; there is but one Mediator of the Covenant of Grace,
let it be considered under whichever Administration it will;
even Christ, who under the Former Administration was revealed as the Seed of the woman that should Bruise the serpent's head,
and Make Atonement by His Sufferings and Death, signified by the Expiatory Sacrifices, under the Law;

"the Shiloh, the Peaceable One, and the Peace Maker, the Living Redeemer of Job, and of all believers under the Old Testament.

Moses, indeed, was a Mediator, but he was only a typical one. There is but "one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus";
there never was any other, and He is the "Mediator of the New Covenant", #1Ti 2:5 Heb 12:24.

"1d. In the subjects of these Covenants, or Administrations of the Covenants of Grace, the Elect of God,
to whom the blessings of it are applied.

It was with the Chosen People of God in Christ, that the Covenant of Grace was originally Made;
and according to the Election of Grace are the Spiritual Blessings of it Dispensed to the children of men, #Ps 89:3 Eph 1:3,4
so they were under the Former Administration of the Covenants of Grace, from the beginning of the World, to the Seed of the woman,
in distinction from the seed of the serpent; to the Remnant according to the Election of Grace among the Jews,
the children of the Promise that were counted for the seed; and Election, or Elect men, obtain the Blessings of the Covenant in all Ages,
and under the Present Administration of the Covenants of Grace, more abundantly, and in greater numbers.

"1e. The Blessings of the Covenants of Grace are the same under both Administrations.

Salvation and Redemption by Christ is the great Blessings held forth
and enjoyed under the Old Testament and the New Testament, #2Sa 23:5 Heb 9:15.

Justification by the Righteousness of Christ, which the Old Testament church had knowledge of,
and Faith in, as well as the New, #Isa 45:24,25 Ro 3:21-23.

Forgiveness of sin through Faith in Christ, all the Prophets bore witness to;
and the saints of Old, as now, had as comfortable an application of it, #Ps 32:1,5 Isa 43:25 Mic 7:18 Ac 10:43.

Regeneration, Spiritual Circumcision, and Sanctification were what men were made partakers of under the First,
as under the Second Administration of the Covenant, #De 30:6 Php 3:3.

Eternal life was made known in the writings of the Old Testament, as well as in those of the New;
and was believed, looked for, and expected by the saints of the Former,
as of the Latter ADMINISTRATION OF THE DOCTRINES OF GRACE,
#John 5:39 Heb 11:10,16 Job 19:26,27.

In a word, they and we eat the same Spiritual Meat, and drink the same Spiritual Drink,
for they drank of that Rock that followed them, and "that Rock was Christ", #1Co 10:3,4."

 

[Van]

"From the Internet" is not sufficient sourcing. Come on, Van, we've been through this before.

A public posting need not comply with your classroom rules.

 

[Van]

2. Autonomy of the Local Church
The local church is an independent body accountable to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the church. All human authority for governing the local church resides within the local church itself. Thus the church is autonomous, or self-governing. No religious hierarchy outside the local church may dictate a church’s beliefs or practices. Autonomy does not mean isolation. A Baptist church may fellowship with other churches around mutual interests and in an associational tie, but a Baptist church cannot be a “member” of any other body. (
Colossians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 8:1-5, 19, 23)

- From What is a Baptist [link]

Does that help?

No, it does not help. The usual "ask" for source is simply a ploy to deny the fact and switch subject to sourcing from whatever topic is at hand.
Obfuscation on display. When I post, from the internet anyone can copy the first several words and do a search and find the source. Anyone!!!

 

[Van]

Who said Baptists began before the folks that separated from the Church of England. To go back farther, one must swim back through the Church of England, and then jump into Roman Catholic believers, and back to the Church fathers. Just like everybody else.

The only point some Baptists make is we do not swim into the reformation, but we sure adopted the Reformers sound principles over and against bogus doctrines.

 

[Ben1445]

Another distinctive blurred to allow two very different policies to both be called Baptist, is church polity. The biblical view is that the members vote to elect 'leaders" whether we call them deacons, elders, pastors or trustees.

I know about Titus choosing elders.

Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Titus is not an apostle. This is not apostolic authority being exercised.
Titus is only one. He is not the membership.

I’m interested to know where you see a view in the Bible of a vote taking place.

The governing board, then leads the church in day to day activities, but periodically reports to the members. The tension arises when the leaders usurp power and the church becomes a "top down" organization where leaders are only accountable to themselves or other leaders in the bureaucracy.

I find that the tension arises when the followers usurp power. Leaders should be leading. I don’t understand how they can lead without authority or take authority away from the people who should be following.

I don’t have a problem with elected leaders. I view a congregational vote as a multitude of counselors. I’m all for constitutions and bylaws. These should help to alleviate problems later. They should establish guidelines for the church to follow. A church constitution is not the Bible. It should be biblical. I have seen too many people weaponize a church constitution to fit their opinions. When I saw it happen, it was the modern version of Corban. It boiled down to an attempt to not do good based on the church constitution. We changed it so that it did not hinder us from doing good.

To say that the followers are the leaders and the leaders have no authority is confusing.

 

[Salty]

The BAPTISTS acrostic was developed in the early 1960s by L. Duane Brown when he was pastor of Pine Valley Baptist Church, Pine Valley, N.Y. Brown was a graduate of Baptist Bible Seminary, where he studied theology with Paul R. Jackson. The following account is from Brown’s recently released memoir, My Cup Runneth Over:

I personally knew Dr. Brown! I first met him about 1967, when he was the Dean for Camp Bayouca and I was on the teenage staff. I then worked with him with the Bap association in Texas, I had lunch with him at Denver Bap College, the day the Space shuttle blew up in 1986, and I visited his home in New Jersey. A very wonderful man! About 2 years ago, he met the Lord Jesus Christ - face to face!


and with that said:

Six hour warning - this thread shall be closed no sooner than 0400 GMT (Tue) -- 11 PM EDT (Mon)

 

[Ben1445]

Due to poor translation, some Bible readers are unaware that leaders were elected by a show of hands of the members, the assembly of those called out of darkness into the kingdom. See Acts 14:23 and 2 Corinthians 8:19. The word translated as appointed (or chosen or ordained) is "cheirotoneō" ( G5500 ) and means to vote by stretching out the hand.

I had not gotten this far.

 

[Van]

I know about Titus choosing elders.

Titus 1:5
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Titus is not an apostle. This is not apostolic authority being exercised.
Titus is only one. He is not the membership.

I’m interested to know where you see a view in the Bible of a vote taking place.

I find that the tension arises when the followers usurp power. Leaders should be leading. I don’t understand how they can lead without authority or take authority away from the people who should be following.

I don’t have a problem with elected leaders. I view a congregational vote as a multitude of counselors. I’m all for constitutions and bylaws. These should help to alleviate problems later. They should establish guidelines for the church to follow. A church constitution is not the Bible. It should be biblical. I have seen too many people weaponize a church constitution to fit their opinions. When I saw it happen, it was the modern version of Corban. It boiled down to an attempt to not do good based on the church constitution. We changed it so that it did not hinder us from doing good.

To say that the followers are the leaders and the leaders have no authority is confusing.

Good question!
Here is what I said:

​

Due to poor translation, some Bible readers are unaware that leaders were elected by a show of hands of the members, the assembly of those called out of darkness into the kingdom. See Acts 14:23 and 2 Corinthians 8:19. The word translated as appointed (or chosen or ordained) is "cheirotoneō" ( G5500 ) and means to vote by stretching out the hand.​

So your question, as I understand it, why did the church transition from the Apostles and designee (Titus) unilaterally appointing leaders, to the members electing them? The best I can do is point out Paul being inspired could designate Titus, but Titus could not pass on that designation. Rather the ongoing model is member election by a show of hands! This is the Baptist distinctive.

Once more reinforcement of the concept is rule by a plurality of leaders, no matter the name. Here, the concept of relying on multiple indwelt believers to make important decisions to carry out Christ's ministry is demonstrated again.

God bless.

 

[Ben1445]

A public posting need not comply with your classroom rules.

It also doesn’t tell us where you got your information. It isn’t classroom rules. It is honesty, giving credit to the source. It is clarity, giving recognition of the potential bias in the source. My ability to agree with someone begins with credibility. Without investigation, I am less likely to believe a true statement from Joseph Smith than I am to believe a mistake by Charles Spurgeon. (The likely hood of Smith being right about something over Spurgeon is highly unlikely)
It is helpful in any case to know whether you are quoting Baptists or Mormons.

 

[Van]

It also doesn’t tell us where you got your information. It isn’t classroom rules. It is honesty, giving credit to the source. It is clarity, giving recognition of the potential bias in the source. My ability to agree with someone begins with credibility. Without investigation, I am less likely to believe a true statement from Joseph Smith than I am to believe a mistake by Charles Spurgeon. (The likely hood of Smith being right about something over Spurgeon is highly unlikely)
It is helpful in any case to know whether you are quoting Baptists or Mormons.

See post #93.