churches dropping the word "Baptist" from their names

[Marcia]

I've belonged to a church that did infant baptism - but it was not a baptism of regeneration or a believer's baptism. It was more like a dedication, so we were OK with that. They of course also did believer's baptism for adults.

Okay, this raises a question for me. If an infant is baptized this way, then does he/she get baptized again when they become born again?

We have a few charismatic people in our church and a few who believe some unbiblical things but they are not allowed to take over, not because of our name but because of our stance. Our name isn't our statement of beliefs and changing the name would not change our beliefs. I don't tie the two so closely together.

I think it may depend on how the church is set up, its constitution and statement of faith, if things in the constitution/doctrinal statement can be changed, etc. If the latter is true, then if enough charismatics join, they could change the constitution and have speaking in tongues as part of the statement of faith.

 

[annsni]

Okay, this raises a question for me. If an infant is baptized this way, then does he/she get baptized again when they become born again?

Yep

I think it may depend on how the church is set up, its constitution and statement of faith, if things in the constitution/doctrinal statement can be changed, etc. If the latter is true, then if enough charismatics join, they could change the constitution and have speaking in tongues as part of the statement of faith.

I think it would be hard to change a constitution/doctrinal statement in a solid church and even if they were named "Baptist", it wouldn't stop them from doing so if the church were very weak in leadership. In other words, I don't think a "name" is going to make it easier or harder to change a church's foundation.

 

[Jerome]

"While we, as a denomination, are poor, the Baptists in England who are not true to their name are, I suppose, among the richest people in the world. I believe the best Wesleyans, certainly the best Congregationalists, very many of the best Church of England people, and all the best Plymouth Brethren, have been baptized. We simply stand out, while the other Baptists, for reasons best known to themselves, slink every man to his tent in the rear, and thus escape the reproach which we have to bear. Baptists who are members of "respectable" churches, I do not respect you for having left your brethren and deserted your colours for the sake of being respectable! We are not "respectable" at all because we put faith and baptism into their right places. A man says, "I do not like to be called a Baptist." Sir, there is no Baptist who wants you to be so called; he does not feel so proud of you as to think it an honour to have his name coupled with yours." ---Charles Spurgeon, Autobiography

 

[Johnv]

If you have a Baptist church that already has people who are charismatic and some who believe other things non-Baptist...

By definition, the ONLY things that make a church Baptist is adherence to the Baptist Distinctives. So, if one wants to get technical, probably every Baptist church has beliefs that are nonbaptist.

 

[Marcia]

I think it would be hard to change a constitution/doctrinal statement in a solid church and even if they were named "Baptist", it wouldn't stop them from doing so if the church were very weak in leadership. In other words, I don't think a "name" is going to make it easier or harder to change a church's foundation.

Thanks for answering the question re baptism.

I do think having the name makes a good argument for keeping Baptist distinctives in some churches; it serves as a foundation if people want to change doctrines.

I'm with Jim - I don't like false advertising. If a church considers itself Baptist and holds to those distinctives, then why not say so? I am more and more against changing names to "attract" people. If the name is a barrier, other things will be barriers as well even without that name.

 

[Johnv]

I think it may depend on how the church is set up, its constitution and statement of faith, if things in the constitution/doctrinal statement can be changed, etc.

Interesting that you say that, because there was one person here not long ago that said his church was Baptist, that he'd never heard of the Baptist Distinctives before, and when that his constitution didn't include the Distinctives in it. Which left me asking, how can one be a Baptist and not adhere to the Baptist Distinctives.

 

[KenH]

What name did the churches in the New Testament use?

 

[Marcia]

Interesting that you say that, because there was one person here not long ago that said his church was Baptist, that he'd never heard of the Baptist Distinctives before, and when that his constitution didn't include the Distinctives in it. Which left me asking, how can one be a Baptist and not adhere to the Baptist Distinctives.

I wonder if maybe he was a new believer? Although I went to some Baptist churches when I was younger, I did not know what the term "Baptist distinctives" really meant until a while after being saved. I knew there were differences among denominations but that term did not mean much to me.

 

[Johnv]

Not sure, honestly, Morcia. He sounded very familiar with his church's constitution. Most new believers wouldn't have that much familiarity with their church's constitution.

What name did the churches in the New Testament use?

Uh, I'm gonna guess and say it wasn't "New Testament Baptist Church, IFB".

 

[Tom Butler]

This sounds like something I have said before, but the name seems different somehow??

Looking back at the posts, you certainly did. I wish I'd re-worded it a bit to disguise the fact that I stole it from you.

 

[webdog]

What name did the churches in the New Testament use?

Bingo! The name is irrelevant, IMO (unless it were vulgar or something to that nature)

 

[Marcia]

What name did the churches in the New Testament use?

I don't think we know for sure, except maybe "the church at Corinth," "the church at Smyrna," etc.

But before we idolize the early church, let's keep in mind they were fraught with divisions and invaded by false teachings. They had as many problems as the modern church - they were not more prisitine or "spiritual" than we are.

 

[Jim1999]

We are not living in New Testament times. We are living now, a whole different age and culture.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[gb93433]

I get annoyed at false advertising!

Maybe, just maybe, it is high time we started re-teaching Baptist distinctives and stopped playing games.

If you start off on a weak knee, you just might end up a cripple.

So many of them have failed to teach the Bible very well and spend loads of time on other things of little importance.

 

[gb93433]

Who, the mormons?

Not at all.

 

[Allan]

Looking back at the posts, you certainly did. I wish I'd re-worded it a bit to disguise the fact that I stole it from you.

Acatually brother, I was trying to be funny
What you wrote is much the same that I would have said, but the person who wrote it wasn't me. I am sick and it appears it joking is catching it to :laugh:

 

[annsni]

See, our church has "Baptist" in the name because that is the group we most closely associate with. However, we're completely independent of any group.

We don't look at "Baptist distinctives" but at the Scriptures instead. If we were to start the church today, I'm not sure that we'd use the name Baptist. I'll let you know how it goes down with the new church plant.

 

[Tom Butler]

Acatually brother, I was trying to be funny
What you wrote is much the same that I would have said, but the person who wrote it wasn't me. I am sick and it appears it joking is catching it to :laugh:

That's okay. You're sick and I'm dense. Hope you get to feeling better soon. You can get over sick. I'm not sure there's a cure for dense.

 

[Tom Butler]

Let me expand on my view that this is a marketing strategy. Strategies are not wrong in and of themselves. One of Paul's strategies was to go to the synagogues in the cities he visited. Another was to go to the marketplace and preach. He went to where the people were.

So is this modern marketing strategy based on a flawed principle? The New Testament way was to reach out and to where the lost were. This new strategy seems to be based on the idea of attracting people to where you are.

Now, I'm not opposed to a church advertising itself, using modern tools available. I'm talking about the mindset behind the strategy.

And Marcia put her finger on the flaw in this post:

However, now I think that it's not worth changing the name to "attract the lost." If the lost won't come because the name is "Baptist," they'll find another reason not to come. Saying the word "Baptist" keeps people away just shows that people will be kept away by anything if they don't want to attend. Besides, I think the church is mainly for believers and to equip believers to witness to the lost.

If someone is being drawn by the Lord, the name "Baptist" won't stop them.

In addition to pointing out the mindset flaw, Marcia also is right about the solution. Do no leave the drawing work of the Holy Spirit out of the equation.

 

[matt wade]

Not at all.

What, then, is the largest missionary organization? I thought I heard the mormons had the largest, but I could certainly be wrong.