churches dropping the word "Baptist" from their names

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?

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.

 

"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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

What name did the churches in the New Testament use?

 

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.

 

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.

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

Cheers,

Jim

 

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

 

Not at all.

 

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.

 

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:

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.

 

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