What makes you a Baptist?

Hopefully this is an interesting and enlightening thread.

So, what makes you a Baptist?

As for me, I hold to all of the "Baptist Distinctives". I have tried to fit in elsewhere, for various reasons, but I have found it very difficult to give up any of the Baptist distinctives.

easternstar said:

Hopefully this is an interesting and enlightening thread.

So, what makes you a Baptist?

As for me, I hold to all of the "Baptist Distinctives". I have tried to fit in elsewhere, for various reasons, but I have found it very difficult to give up any of the Baptist distinctives.

Click to expand...

Shortly put, I don’t see any other church that follows Scripture as closely as Baptists do. I don’t mean all Baptists either. But if I am on the road looking for a church, I start looking in Baptist churches because that is where I expect to hear the Word of God. This is an oversimplified explanation and I don’t mean that if you are not Baptist then you are not following the Bible. But it is frequently observable that way to me. So I am not looking for pearls in the pig pen even if they are there. I’m looking where they have a reputation of being.

---

---

1. Believers-only baptism
2. Regenerate church membership*
3. Local church autonomy

These three are distinctive Baptist beliefs. There are other beliefs that most Baptists share with some other denominations, such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, Christ's return, sufficiency and authority of scripture, the final judgment, justification by faith, penal substitution et al.

*Based on a credible profession of faith. Only God knows a person's heart.

easternstar said:

So, what makes you a Baptist?

Click to expand...

In the summer of 1962. Some from a Baptist church came to the door of the house that I lived and invited us to church. A ride was offered. My Mom allowed my sister and I to visit that church the following Sunday.

Before the Sunday preaching service two adults approched me. I was asked if I would like to know for sure about going to heaven if I died, would like too? Of course I did. In short, I was lead to believe in Jesus Christ to be my Savior.

In July of 1966, I joined the U.S. Air Force. It came to where I was asked to give them what religion? Well I was a Christian. That would not work to well.. What kind? My persuasion was Baptist.

I'm not being facetious, but what makes me a Baptist is the fact that I attend a Baptist church. To me, that's about it.

easternstar said:

Hopefully this is an interesting and enlightening thread.

So, what makes you a Baptist?

As for me, I hold to all of the "Baptist Distinctives". I have tried to fit in elsewhere, for various reasons, but I have found it very difficult to give up any of the Baptist distinctives.

Click to expand...

I was born in the Baptist Hospital of Miami, OK. What else do I need? Oh, yeah, then there are the Baptist distinctives, which are fully Biblical. Then there is the lack of any denominational structure in the Scriptures, then the autonomy of all local churches for the first three centuries at least of church history. Etc. etc.

Reformed said:

---

---

1. Believers-only baptism
2. Regenerate church membership*
3. Local church autonomy

These three are distinctive Baptist beliefs. There are other beliefs that most Baptists share with some other denominations, such as the Trinity, deity of Christ, Christ's return, sufficiency and authority of scripture, the final judgment, justification by faith, penal substitution et al.

*Based on a credible profession of faith. Only God knows a person's heart.

Click to expand...

Good points, and also that many radio and tv pastors and preachers that taught on the bible well were fellow Baptist, as grew up even while not yet saved listening to them on TV and radio

When you get down to it, the only thing that makes someone a Baptist is the mode of baptism that they adhere to. Even most non-denominational churches that practice believer’s baptism by immersion would also be called Baptists by definition.

Tea said:

When you get down to it, the only thing that makes someone a Baptist is the mode of baptism that they adhere to. Even most non-denominational churches that practice believer’s baptism by immersion would also be called Baptists by definition.

Click to expand...

If that is true, then John the Baptist was a Baptist! Not to mention the Church of Christ, the Mormons, and others who baptize by immersion. Personally, I don't include anyone as a Baptist unless they adhere to a normative version of the Baptist Distinctives.

Happy New Year!

John of Japan said:

If that is true, then John the Baptist was a Baptist! Not to mention the Church of Christ, the Mormons, and others who baptize by immersion. Personally, I don't include anyone as a Baptist unless they adhere to a normative version of the Baptist Distinctives.

Happy New Year!

Click to expand...

Many denominations hold some of the Baptist Distinctives, but I don't know of any that hold all of them. I guess if they did, they'd be Baptists.

BTW, what do you mean by a 'normative version'?

Baptist distinctives are the fundamental beliefs that separate fundamental Baptists from other religious groups.
These distinctives include:

Biblical Authority: The Bible is inspired, infallible, and the final authority.

Autonomy of the Local Church: Each local church is self-governing and independent.

Priesthood of All Believers: All believers have direct access to God.

Two Ordinances: Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Individual Soul Liberty: Each person is responsible to God for their beliefs.

Separation of Church and State: The church should be free from government control.

Two Offices: Pastor and deacon.

Saved Baptized Believers: Baptism is for believers who have made a personal profession of faith.

easternstar said:

Many denominations hold some of the Baptist Distinctives, but I don't know of any that hold all of them. I guess if they did, they'd be Baptists.

BTW, what do you mean by a 'normative version'?

Click to expand...

There are various versions of the Baptist Distinctives, but to me a normative version is one that has five or six valid points, not dumbing down what a Baptist is, but not overdoing it either. There have been Baptists like this ever since the English Baptists at the beginning of the 17th century. Deacon's list in the previous post is pretty normative, and I agree with it, but it's a little longer than the one my mission board for many years, and now my church and college.

Also, I have to say that most Baptists, especially independent Baptists like me, do not call "Baptist" a denomination. There is no headquarters and no denominational structure--though many call the SBC and ABC denominations because they do have somewhat of that.

Deacon said:

Baptist distinctives are the fundamental beliefs that separate fundamental Baptists from other religious groups.
These distinctives include:

Biblical Authority: The Bible is inspired, infallible, and the final authority.

Autonomy of the Local Church: Each local church is self-governing and independent.

Priesthood of All Believers: All believers have direct access to God.

Two Ordinances: Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Individual Soul Liberty: Each person is responsible to God for their beliefs.

Separation of Church and State: The church should be free from government control.

Two Offices: Pastor and deacon.

Saved Baptized Believers: Baptism is for believers who have made a personal profession of faith.

Click to expand...

I have no probelm with 7 of these, and I'm glad to see you referring to two 'ordinances' rather than 'sacraments.' It may just be a matter of words, but I think we should avoid any perceived connection with the Roman Catholic connotation of 'sacrament.'
My problem with T is not so much with the two offices, but with the use of the word Pastor. The 'monarchical pastor' may be unavoidable in a very small church, but I don't think it's biblical. When Paul greets the church in Philippi, he mentions the 'Bishops and deacons.' ['Bishop' should really be translated as 'overseer.' Gk. episkopos] Both nouns are plural, so in the not very large city of Philippi, there was a plurality of overseers. Moreover, in Acts 20:17, we read that Paul called for the 'elders [Gk. Presbuteroi] of the church.' Then, in his address to these people, he says, 'Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [Gk. episkopoi], to shepherd [or 'pastor.'Gk. poimaino] the church of God....' (Acts 20:28). The task of shepherding or 'pastoring' falls to the elders, and they are also overseers. The office is one and the same.
In many churches, including my own, there is a plurality of elders, of whom one works full-time and tends to be known as the pastor, but they are all equal, though one may be considered 'first among equals. When Paul tells the Ephesian elders to 'take heed to yourselves,' he means not only that each elder should pay attention to his own behaviour, but that they should hold each other to account. No one is above admonishment or rebuke.

I took an online test that told me I was a Baptist. ... seriously!

[From Atheism] After attending the RCC, Church of God (Anderson Indiana), Evangelical Free Church, Pentecostal Church (independent with Moravian leanings) ... and reading a lot of Bible, I took an extensive online quiz that said my personal beliefs were a 100% match to something called "Reformed Baptist". So I went and checked out the nearest "Southern Baptist" Church and joined them in an extensive study of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I stuck around and learned more about Baptists (like the Distinctives and the 1689 Baptist Confession). It just seems like a good fit.

Martin Marprelate said:

I have no probelm with 7 of these, and I'm glad to see you referring to two 'ordinances' rather than 'sacraments.' It may just be a matter of words, but I think we should avoid any perceived connection with the Roman Catholic connotation of 'sacrament.'
My problem with T is not so much with the two offices, but with the use of the word Pastor. The 'monarchical pastor' may be unavoidable in a very small church, but I don't think it's biblical. When Paul greets the church in Philippi, he mentions the 'Bishops and deacons.' ['Bishop' should really be translated as 'overseer.' Gk. episkopos] Both nouns are plural, so in the not very large city of Philippi, there was a plurality of overseers. Moreover, in Acts 20:17, we read that Paul called for the 'elders [Gk. Presbuteroi] of the church.' Then, in his address to these people, he says, 'Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [Gk. episkopoi], to shepherd [or 'pastor.'Gk. poimaino] the church of God....' (Acts 20:28). The task of shepherding or 'pastoring' falls to the elders, and they are also overseers. The office is one and the same.
In many churches, including my own, there is a plurality of elders, of whom one works full-time and tends to be known as the pastor, but they are all equal, though one may be considered 'first among equals. When Paul tells the Ephesian elders to 'take heed to yourselves,' he means not only that each elder should pay attention to his own behaviour, but that they should hold each other to account. No one is above admonishment or rebuke.

Click to expand...

Just my perspective, I see that you don’t like the pastor to be the elder, but the elders are pastors. It looks like the same thing to me.
I have seen several churches with multiple pastors.
Is the problem that they don’t spell pastor, e-l-d-e-r? I’m not seeing any other difference worth mentioning.

I’m not poking fun. This is a serious question.

Ben1445 said:

Just my perspective, I see that you don’t like the pastor to be the elder, but the elders are pastors. It looks like the same thing to me.
I have seen several churches with multiple pastors.
Is the problem that they don’t spell pastor, e-l-d-e-r? I’m not seeing any other difference worth mentioning.

I’m not poking fun. This is a serious question.

Click to expand...

I don't think so.

Having been in more than a few churches and been under more than a few church Government Structures, Martin seems to have a problem with the "GOD - PASTOR - congregation" model of Church hierarchy that too often manifests as an "Imperial Pastor" who functions like the Pope of his Church. Martin advocates for "multiple leaders" (be they called 'Pastors', 'Elders' or 'Overseers') ... to avoid a "monarchy".

atpollard said:

Martin advocates for "multiple leaders" (be they called 'Pastors', 'Elders' or 'Overseers') ... to avoid a "monarchy".

Click to expand...

He stated pointedly that he had a "problem" with the term 'pastor'!

Avoid a "monarchy"? How about avoid an "oligarchy" of his 'elders' scheme?

atpollard said:

I don't think so.

Having been in more than a few churches and been under more than a few church Government Structures, Martin seems to have a problem with the "GOD - PASTOR - congregation" model of Church hierarchy that too often manifests as an "Imperial Pastor" who functions like the Pope of his Church. Martin advocates for "multiple leaders" (be they called 'Pastors', 'Elders' or 'Overseers') ... to avoid a "monarchy".

Click to expand...

But the problem could be the same and reinforced by several united “monarchical” elders. I have not been a member of something like this but I have seen it happen.
It doesn’t seem to make much of a difference to me.
But I would be happy to get a blueprint for what the real difference is.
And how many is the right number?
Deacons as an example…
There were seven deacons for a church that thousands were added to.
While each of the thousand are not in need of care, there were certainly more than we have in our present day small churches. So for a church of about 50, how many elders and how many deacons.
Church of 100?
Where does it seem like a good place to start ensuring that pastors are elders (aka not monarchs).
There are directions in Scripture for pastors/elders, are there not?
Excuse my use of the word pastor. I understand that elder is preferable to the conversation, but the leaders in the OT were also called pastors. The term pastor means the same thing to me as elder does to those of the “elder” persuasion.
People are given the responsibility of overseeing and feeding their local assembly.
The apostles feed the “sheep” (spiritual) and received financial gifts (physical) this is one office caring for the physical and spiritual oversight. So is it that there should be more than one overseer?
Several overseers doesn’t change that the overseer is not to lord over the flock.

Anytime I hear about this topic, it always seems like the symptoms are being addressed instead of the problem.
To me the spelling of the title is superficial.
Speak the language familiar to me. Why must every church have multiple pastors.

Martin Marprelate said:

When Paul greets the church in Philippi, he mentions the 'Bishops and deacons.' ['Bishop' should really be translated as 'overseer.' Gk. episkopos]

Click to expand...

Congregational governance is the Baptist and Biblical way. Versus the monarchical Episcopal and oligarchical Prebyterian schemes that have been cooked up by Catholic/Anglican/etc and Reformed.

The reason we settled on calling our ministers pastors, is that 'bishop' and 'elder' have been so twisted in meaning in our language by those systems. And why anyone would prefer 'overseer', so associated in our language with the system of slavery, is beyond me!

Jerome said:

He stated pointedly that he had a "problem" with the term 'pastor'!

Avoid a "monarchy"? How about avoid an "oligarchy" of his 'elders' scheme?

Click to expand...

Ben1445 said:

But the problem could be the same and reinforced by several united “monarchical” elders. I have not been a member of something like this but I have seen it happen.
It doesn’t seem to make much of a difference to me.
But I would be happy to get a blueprint for what the real difference is.
And how many is the right number?
Deacons as an example…
There were seven deacons for a church that thousands were added to.

Click to expand...

I will have to let Martin answer for Martin (I already stated what I thought his objection was to).
I am qualified to answer for ME (no mind-reading required)

Church government form is almost irrelevant. All forms have inherent strengths and weaknesses. In my experience, the "weak link" always seems to be the need to place "governing power" into the hands of PEOPLE. PEOPLE are innately flawed and (even at their best) prone to both error and corruption (being made more flawed). Jesus was clear that in His kingdom, the leaders were to be servants of the rest (the greatest was to be the slave of the others) ... the Apostles failed to get it in the Gospels and we living today don't do any better.

So, I don't sweat church organization as much as some. When I encounter a pastor that needs to "manage" everything, I step back and look for someplace else to invest my time [The pastor preaches, his wife runs the sound booth, his mother is in charge of ...] I accept that things are just how they are. God changes hearts, I have no power in that area. I accept that he is making things harder for himself and leaving people who want to help with a discouraging number of "naysayers". I once heard someone describe it as "OK, I guess I am just a 'tither'." when all her offers to help were met with "So-and-So does that; we don't need any help".

Once upon a time I was appointed Elder over the Children's Ministry, I had a lot of good teachers that loved the children and wanted to teach them. They didn't need a "boss" to tell them what to do. They needed a "lineman" to play defense. My primary duty was to listen to all the advice from well meaning people about how OTHER PEOPLE should be doing additional work or doing things different (but they had no desire to participate in the actual work) and to smile and ignore their suggestions ... thus protecting those with a heart for children from interference by those wishing to control them. I strove for service to the "deacons" (those doing the work) rather than authority over them. My "authority" was a mandate to protect.

I have observed that the larger the church, the further removed the "Pastor" is from the "least of these". Probably unavoidable, but not the model that Jesus set up in the NT. As Baptists, we claim to desire to follow the NT model ... which is about HEARTS and MINDS more than organizational structures.

[... but what do I know. I am just a former atheist thug trying to figure out this whole GOD among Us thing.]