I'm an interesting fella
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Do You Know the Baptist Distinctives?
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
37818
Well-Known Member
It may depend on how something is understood. Please specify a point.
2 Corinthians 9:7, Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
I believe in free will giving.
So I can't be anti tithing.
Abraham tithed to Melchisedec before the Law was given.
I would disagree here. If a Baptist church accepts sprinkling, to me they are not broadening the meaning of Baptist, they are diluting it and moving away from being a Baptist. IMO, at that point they ought to remove the name Baptist from their sign, and call themselves a Bible church, community church, etc. In other words, the exception does not disprove the proposition.
I'd say that 999/1000 Baptist churches would completely reject sprinkling! In fact, the only one I've ever heard of that accepted sprinkling was Piper's Bethlehem Baptist!
Interestingly enough, you posted two lists from Trail of Blood. One is from the intro, and the other is from the author, J. M. Carroll. My copy doesn't have the first list with the same wording as the one you gave, but I'll answer your lists. I object to some of the points which are or should be said of all churches claiming to be Christian: Christ as the Head, the name being "Church," tithing. None of these are "Baptist distinctives," meaning purposely followed by Baptists especially. I agree that some of the usual list of Baptist distinctives are practiced by other churches, but not by all churches.
I've never thought tithing to be a Baptist distinctive, since this is a practice commonly accepted by virtually all Christian churches. Even cults believe in tithing!
This is a pretty good list. You're definitely a Baptist!
A note: any such list is descriptive, not prescriptive.
I see your point here. The only problem I see is, foot washing does not portray the Gospel like the two usually accepted ordinances do. But I could go to a church that practices foot washing and call it Baptist. Side note: my son once attended a wedding where the bride and groom washed each other's feet!
Here I would differ. To me, "elder rule" churches are straying from the clear Word of God. Peter used "elder" and "pastor" as synonyms. Other than that, I can't imagine any offices other than pastor and deacon a Baptist church might recognize.
Point taken, but I'd still include it, since there are baby baptizing churches that have members who are unsaved. Remember the "Halfway Covenant."
Maybe "Alliance of Former Baptists"?
I attended a Baptist church (can't remember which one) that did not believe in tithing. They did believe in giving to the church and that this would be greater than 10% in most cases, but that the tithe foreshadowed a time when 100% rather than 10% would be considered belonging to God.
My opinion is if we make only that one a "distinctive" then a ton of churches would be out there which do not call themselves Baptist and don't want to. So the term "distinctive" points to something unique to Baptists. So I feel a good, well thought out list is very important.
There are three theories of Baptist origins: the Trail of Blood theory, including many groups back to Acts 2; the Anabaptist as origin theory; the English Baptist theory. I used to hold to the Anabaptist theory until I learned that there is no historical link between them and the English Baptists (leadership, associations, cooperation, etc.) Also, the Anabaptists are still around, and never became true Baptists (Mennonites, Amish, etc.).
This is a drift away from being a Baptist to me. Highland Park Baptist Church did this with their "chapels" back in the 1970's when I was at Tennessee Temple. Didn't agree with it then, don't now. It is a drift away from Baptist polity into denominationalism--though Dr. Roberson would have been offended if I had said that to him! Their reason for that was to prevent the chapels from going into the SBC like one reportedly did early on.
All three of these are problematic to me; not Baptistic.
If someone made me the Baptist pope, I'd narrow that list for sure!
By the way, I have a Baptist pastor friend whose last name is Pope!Try that dodge with most Baptist pastors and prepare for scalded ears!
and with the Landmarks (Trail of Blood) they also believe that you must be baptized by a "Spiritual baptizer" of John of Japan -- oops - I mean John the Baptizer --- That means that the guy who baptized you , must have been someone who was baptized by someone who........ was baptized by John the Baptizer!.....
37818
Well-Known Member
I do not believe a tithe is command to Christ's churches. But based on Abraham tithed to Melchisedeck, a tithe would not be a wrong place to start, if one so chose.
I lean towards Baptists bring a natural amalgamation of the Reformers and Anabaptist's theology. One reason for this opinion is the Anabaptists were vocal and even supportive of tge Protestant Reformation, so I can see how doctrine would be shared. We see this in many Mennonite congregations that have adopted Arminianism in terms of Atonement, and even with Amish adopting cultural-political engagement as the work of the church.My opinion is if we make only that one a "distinctive" then a ton of churches would be out there which do not call themselves Baptist and don't want to. So the term "distinctive" points to something unique to Baptists. So I feel a good, well thought out list is very important.
There are three theories of Baptist origins: the Trail of Blood theory, including many groups back to Acts 2; the Anabaptist as origin theory; the English Baptist theory. I used to hold to the Anabaptist theory until I learned that there is no historical link between them and the English Baptists (leadership, associations, cooperation, etc.) Also, the Anabaptists are still around, and never became true Baptists (Mennonites, Amish, etc.).
This is a drift away from being a Baptist to me. Highland Park Baptist Church did this with their "chapels" back in the 1970's when I was at Tennessee Temple. Didn't agree with it then, don't now. It is a drift away from Baptist polity into denominationalism--though Dr. Roberson would have been offended if I had said that to him! Their reason for that was to prevent the chapels from going into the SBC like one reportedly did early on.
All three of these are problematic to me; not Baptistic.
If someone made me the Baptist pope, I'd narrow that list for sure!
I agree with you concerning what is not baptistic. But I am also somewhat divided on the topic. I don't know if the Baptist distinctives today are those of yesterday.
For example, historically it would be impossible for a Baptist to be a Calvinist. But there is a difference, apparently, between historic Calvinism and Calvinism today.
I'd be interested concerning what historical link you have found between the Anabaptists and those who went by the name Baptist in England (beginning in the early 1600s), the American colonies, etc.
Reading Theologians of the Baptist Tradition, ed. by Timothy George and David Dockery (2001), convinced me that the distinctives are pretty much the same as they were in the 18th century (so probably also in the beginnings of the English Baptists in the 17th century). The book starts (after the forward) with an essay by John Gill, who was Baptist through and through.
That would be an interesting subject to explore. I'm sure you are aware of the Calvinism of Gill in the 18th century comparted to that of the followers of Andrew Fuller, the Fullerites, including William Carey.
Alan Dale Gross
Active Member
I pretty much agree, but I teach tithing as a wonderful practice. I just don't see it as a distinctive of Baptists, since Christianity across the board (including me) teaches tithing.
I'll give it a look.
many Baptists were Calvinists, as they were churches that labeled themselves as being Particular Baptists, who now use the term reformed Baptists
Would say that the big Baptist distinctives would be local autonomy, believers baptism, separation church and state each person a priest to God and each person can hold to own doctrines and practices as long as not hereticalHmm. Maybe I should have said, "Don't look it up on the Internet or in a book, but just give your own view."Dumb me, I didn't think people would be parroting what others thought they were. But I actually did say in the OP: "So, what does it mean to you to be a Baptist? Do you have a list of Baptist distinctives?" I did not say, "Look 'em up and find the best list."
Many were and many are. I was one if them.
I am not sure what this has to do with my post, though. I think it is fairly obvious that many Baptists are Calvinists, many are Arminian, many Wesleyan, many none of those. Calvinism is not a Baptist distinctive.
And now you are?