• 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!

churches eliminating "Baptist" from name...

Status
Not open for further replies.

glfredrick

New Member
It's because a lot of baptist people believe they have to intice people to come to church instead of simply preaching the gospel and letting God work in the lives of the lost.

Many baptist people are so concerned about what others think that they literally deceive people into thinking they are something they aren't in many cases.

Like all of the pastors who want people to think we are cool and fit in and go to great lengths to act in a way that they despise just to intice people to listen to them. Christians are not cool and will never fit in. We are hated by the world and that is good because the world is evil.

Our churches should fearlessly preach the cross of Jesus and let God sort everyone out.

I expect that most of our churches do indeed "preach fearlessly" the cross of Christ and the good news of the gospel. The problem is getting lost people INSIDE the doors of our church buildings in order to hear that fearless preaching. Unless one is willing to stand on a street corner with a megaphone, we generally need to have un-saved persons visit our services so that they can hear that gospel message. THAT is the reason that many have decided to remove hindrances -- like names -- from their signs, etc.

As for "being nice" or "cool" why not? Is there some cultural aspect that makes a 1950s or 1560s or 1st century AD culture more desirable than today's culture? Culture is not gospel, though many make it so! We can be nice (actually, the Bible calls us to be "loving" and in a very real sense -- not just in some harsh, "we're looking out for your best interests when we tell you that you are a hell-bound sinner") -- including feeding and caring for "the least of these..." It is true that we'll never fit in -- but that is not a mandate to be stupid -- or weird!

I recall that Jesus was so much a product of His own culture that no one truly recognized His significance until after He was resurrected from the dead. To paraphrase, even the people of His home town said, "Isn't that Jesus the son of Joseph the Carpenter?" Just another regular Joe as far as the culture of His day. The reason Jesus stood out from the crowd at all was because of His message -- the same reason we should stand out. Not because we are an anachronism to an era already passed by.

One question... How does one get un-saved people into our churches without doing SOME form of outreach, including being culturally and contextually relevant? Or, do we just sit back, smug in our own salvation, and figure that God is judging all those people outside our walls who are "too stupid" or "too lost" to come in like we do?
 
One question... How does one get un-saved people into our churches without doing SOME form of outreach, including being culturally and contextually relevant? Or, do we just sit back, smug in our own salvation, and figure that God is judging all those people outside our walls who are "too stupid" or "too lost" to come in like we do?

Outreach is a great thing that we should do, but we should be honest about it and not obscure who we actually are in any way.

A church membership should be a saved church membership and all church members have the duty to spread the gospel and outreach in their communities.

Outreach happens through the membership of the church who live for Christ int he world not through gimmicks.

Once people come to our church service they should see a worship service glorifying God and praising him for his work. The gospel message is a part of that because God is most glorified in the declaration of the gospel.

So the worship service is a worship service not an outreach event. God is worshiped in the declaration of the great things he has done.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...we should ... not obscure who we actually are in any way.
I agree with the principle of not obscuring who we truly are.

On that basis, many churches have avoided using the name Baptist in the sign because they believe it obscures who they truly are because of negative or inaccurate connotations in the local culture.

Frankly, my church (which does use Baptist in the name) is out-of-step with other local Baptist churches in regards to being apolitical from the pulpit and in Sunday School, having female deacons, having a deacon body that serves, but does not rule, having a very strong social gospel conscience while affirming personal responsibility of sinful humankind before God, having an emphasis on personal discipleship and formational disciplines, not having a strong relationship with the SBC or CBF, and affirming the reliability and importance of the scriptures from a fairly conservative theological position (as opposed to some of the more liberal Baptists were are occasionally lumped together with).

Visiting Baptists, especially Southwestern Seminary students, who join us for worship are sometimes rather confused because we aren't much like any of Baptist church they've visited. So I do think our sign might unintentionally obscure who we are.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptist is a name that stands for our "unique" stance on baptism in the history of the church.

Baptism is a command of God. It is important and is a public identification with the risen Christ. We as baptists believe that a person who comes to faith in Christ should identify with him through baptism as a public declaration of that faith symbolic of dying with him and rising to walk in a newness of life.

Other churches do not teach that truth and even the credo churches that do pervert it in some way.

Baptists are a group of people that stand firmly against baptismal regeneration or any other doctrine of salvation by works and I think that is important to carry on.

If the baptist name has negative meaning to God hating worldly people that is fine with me. I don't expect anything sensible from them anyway.

We should be honest about our baptistness and preach the gospel and leave the saving to God.

Ask Joe Blow on the street what being "Baptist" means and you're certainly not going to get what you say here.
 
I agree with the principle of not obscuring who we truly are.

On that basis, many churches have avoided using the name Baptist in the sign because they believe it obscures who they truly are because of negative or inaccurate connotations in the local culture.

Frankly, my church (which does use Baptist in the name) is out-of-step with other local Baptist churches in regards to being apolitical from the pulpit and in Sunday School, having female deacons, having a deacon body that serves, but does not rule, having a very strong social gospel conscience while affirming personal responsibility of sinful humankind before God, having an emphasis on personal discipleship and formational disciplines, not having a strong relationship with the SBC or CBF, and affirming the reliability and importance of the scriptures from a fairly conservative theological position (as opposed to some of the more liberal Baptists were are occasionally lumped together with).

Visiting Baptists, especially Southwestern Seminary students, who join us for worship are sometimes rather confused because we aren't much like any of Baptist church they've visited. So I do think our sign might unintentionally obscure who we are.


If a church has decided to be unscriptural and they should at least take baptist out of their name and admit their stance on that to the populace. That would be a good reason to stop being baptist is if one stopped being scriptural.

However, for biblical baptist churches there is no reason to allow the world to change our name. We are what we are. Anyone who has an ounce of initative can research and find out what a church teaches before they go there especially in this modern age. Unless of course that church isn't forthright or is trying to hide something.
 
Ask Joe Blow on the street what being "Baptist" means and you're certainly not going to get what you say here.

It's not my fault that Joe Blow is wrong. It is Joe Blow's fault for not caring enough to seek the truth about a denomination before he judges it.

We are in an age where the collective knowledge of the world is at anyones fingertips there really isn't an excuse for ignorance about vital matters unless a person is cut off from society or is disabled.
 

annsni

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's not my fault that Joe Blow is wrong. It is Joe Blow's fault for not caring enough to seek the truth about a denomination before he judges it.

We are in an age where the collective knowledge of the world is at anyones fingertips there really isn't an excuse for ignorance about vital matters unless a person is cut off from society or is disabled.

Yes, but someone has a perception and it is nothing that they want to participate in. They will not say "Hey, let me look into this more" but instead will just walk away. Someone invites them and they still have that perception and they say "No thanks." So what do we do?
 

glfredrick

New Member
Outreach is a great thing that we should do, but we should be honest about it and not obscure who we actually are in any way.

A church membership should be a saved church membership and all church members have the duty to spread the gospel and outreach in their communities.

Outreach happens through the membership of the church who live for Christ int he world not through gimmicks.

Once people come to our church service they should see a worship service glorifying God and praising him for his work. The gospel message is a part of that because God is most glorified in the declaration of the gospel.

So the worship service is a worship service not an outreach event. God is worshiped in the declaration of the great things he has done.


No disagreement with you at all!

I'm sensing some disconnect in this thread between having the name "Baptist" in our sign or church name, and what goes on in our ministry. The two are not one and the same! For crying out loud, a name is just that -- a name. Our doctrine, our worship, our ministry, our preaching, and our fellowship are all solidly Baptist.

I've yet to find a Baptist church that wanted to disavow their heritage, though I'm sure that some exist. With the great numbers of Baptist churches of every stripe out there, I'm sure that there are some handful somewhere that disavow their Baptist distinctives and that is why they've pulled Baptist from their name, but I expect that they are the rare few instead of the great norm.

BTW, I looked up your church... Seems fairly modern and "with it" (user friendly and all). I also note that your current sermon series is "Fearless." About the only distinction I see in your church (via its web site) and a church without the name Baptist is the name Baptist is not in one.

Like this church, for instance:

http://valleyviewchurch.org/

This is a SBC church that made a decision to eliminate Baptist from their name. They promptly grew from 250 to 1300+. People that would not darken the door of a "Baptist" church came to Valley View, found Christ and are now living transformed lives.

Or this church where I was the lead planter -- the second largest SBC (at that time) church plant in Wisconsin history:

http://www.rollinghillschurch.com/

In Wisconsin, having the name "Baptist" on the church sign is a promise that you will not grow above 50 members.

Or this church, which was the largest SBC church plant in Wisconsin history:

http://www.jacobswellec.org/

Or, the church where I currently serve:

http://sojournchurch.com/

Where we are reaching the inner city of Louisville with explosive growth, in 10 years since launch running an average of 2500 people every Sunday. Most of our membership was antithetical to church of any sort before their salvation.

http://vimeo.com/10529836

Oh, and we're "cool"... But faithful, doctrinally sound, and doing God's work!

Edit: Oh, and over half of the people in the video above are now pastors in our church!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Havensdad

New Member
Baptist is a name that stands for our "unique" stance on baptism in the history of the church.

Baptism is a command of God. It is important and is a public identification with the risen Christ. We as baptists believe that a person who comes to faith in Christ should identify with him through baptism as a public declaration of that faith symbolic of dying with him and rising to walk in a newness of life.

True, but we are not required to name our church after the practice. If we wanted to name our Church according to what is important in the Scriptures, we should name it "Gospel" church, instead of "Baptist."
Other churches do not teach that truth and even the credo churches that do pervert it in some way.
That is certainly not true. Their are scores of Bible fellowships, Grace churches, etc., who are identical to Baptists on that doctrine.

Baptists are a group of people that stand firmly against baptismal regeneration or any other doctrine of salvation by works and I think that is important to carry on.

Certainly the doctrine is important. Why is the name important?

If the baptist name has negative meaning to God hating worldly people that is fine with me. I don't expect anything sensible from them anyway.

What about on fire, born again Christians who grew up in Baptist churches, and saw horrible legalism and unbiblical practices, that would not step foot in a church named "Baptist"? Should they not have a fellowship? Or should we just leave them to get scooped up by the Charismatics, not to mention "ROb Bells" of this world?

We should be honest about our baptistness and preach the gospel and leave the saving to God.

O.K. But why not name the church after something more important? We don't call our Churches "The Lords Supper" church after the other ordinance. Why not call it "Jesus Christ" church, or "Saved by Grace" church, or "Gospel church," or one of the scores of other doctrines, that are much more important?
 
BTW, I looked up your church... Seems fairly modern and "with it" (user friendly and all). I also note that your current sermon series is "Fearless." About the only distinction I see in your church (via its web site) and a church without the name Baptist is the name Baptist is not in one.

We have a great church. I love it. I am a bit concerned with the size but our pastor does a good job of meeting the needs of out people so it isn't too big I guess. We have a membership of various soteriological and escatological views that unite in the gospel.

And Fearless is a great series so far. Last Sunday was one of the best gospel messages I have ever heard. Pastor Craig is being mightily used of God.

Our church is conservative committed to biblical innerrancy and preaching the truth of the gospel and preparing members to grow and thrive in christ. Not thriving in a worldly Joel Osteen way, but in doing God's will in the purpose he has in your life serving others and advancing the gospel.

Baptist is always going to stay in our name. We're the First Baptist Church of Colleyville for crying out loud!


Oh, and we're "cool"... But faithful, doctrinally sound, and doing God's work!

If you are what you are that's great. It's just that some of the churches lamely try to be what they aren't even to the point of dishonesty.
 
That is certainly not true. Their are scores of Bible fellowships, Grace churches, etc., who are identical to Baptists on that doctrine.

It's a matter of honesty. I believe. If a church is baptist they should admit it.



Certainly the doctrine is important. Why is the name important?

Because that is what designates the doctrine. The same as any other denominational name. Would you like to go to "Faith Alone Fellowship Church" and find out they were really ELCA Lutherans they just did away with that pesky name to draw people in?


What about on fire, born again Christians who grew up in Baptist churches, and saw horrible legalism and unbiblical practices, that would not step foot in a church named "Baptist"? Should they not have a fellowship?

If there is sin in your church you should fight it and reform it if you believe it's doctrines.



O.K. But why not name the church after something more important? We don't call our Churches "The Lords Supper" church after the other ordinance. Why not call it "Jesus Christ" church, or "Saved by Grace" church, or "Gospel church," or one of the scores of other doctrines, that are much more important?

Because the name baptist is the designator for who we are and it is known all over the world as a particular group of people who teach a particular thing. To disassociate from that is to be misleading.
 
Just noticed the Spurgeon quote in your signature. What was the name of his Baptist church again? :laugh:

Spurgeon wasn't always right. His church also crumbled because of relativism in baptist distinctives. I like his quote because it is true. I am not a follower of any man save Christ and my local pastor.
 

glfredrick

New Member
Spurgeon wasn't always right. His church also crumbled because of relativism in baptist distinctives. I like his quote because it is true. I am not a follower of any man save Christ and my local pastor.


So, as long as Spurgeon -- the "Prince of Preachers" doesn't fit your current point, you disavow him? Sounds weird. I'd concede the point about the name Baptist before disavowing Spurgeon. (And no, I'm certainly not worshiping Spurgeon! I worship God through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit! But, I also recognize men that God has used down through the ages, and Spurgeon was one such man. There is much less support for the use of Baptist in our church name than for the true ministry of a man that reached thousands for Christ.

His church certainly did not crumble while he was alive and preachin'... :laugh:
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If a church has decided to be unscriptural and they should at least take baptist out of their name and admit their stance on that to the populace. That would be a good reason to stop being baptist is if one stopped being scriptural.[/b]
Well we are not talking about any church that has decided to be unscriptural. Just a church that is distinct from other Baptist churches in the region.

Of course, this begs the question... What is a Baptist? It is not a brand, but rather a historic movement that has certain distinctives.

Baptists are very diverse, so it creates so confusion to people both outside and inside the Baptist world as to what we truly believe. The vast majority of Baptists affirm the following as Baptist distinctives (when affirmed as a whole):

What Are the Eight Baptist Distinctives?

These teachings may be remembered by associating them with the letters that form the word “BAPTISTS.”

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

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

Priesthood of the Believer

“Priest” is defined as “one authorized to perform the sacred rites of a religion, especially as a mediatory agent between humans and God.” Every believer today is a priest of God and may enter into His presence in prayer directly through our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. No other mediator is needed between God and people. As priests, we can study God’s Word, pray for others, and offer spiritual worship to God. We all have equal access to God–whether we are a preacher or not.
1 Peter 2:5, 9; Revelation 5:9, 10

Two Ordinances

The local church should practice two ordinances: (1) baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and (2) the Lord’s Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.
Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23-32

Individual Soul Liberty

Every individual, whether a believer or an unbeliever, has the liberty to choose what he believes is right in the religious realm. No one should be forced to assent to any belief against his will. Baptists have always opposed religious persecution. However, this liberty does not exempt one from responsibility to the Word of God or from accountability to God Himself.
Romans 14:5, 12; 2 Corinthians 4:2; Titus 1:9

Saved, Baptized Church Membership

Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer’s baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Acts 2:41-47; 1 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 4:3

Two Offices

The Bible mandates only two offices in the church–pastor and deacon. The three terms–”pastor,” “elder,” and “bishop,” or “overseer”–all refer to the same office. The two offices of pastor and deacon exist within the local church, not as a hierarchy outside or over the local church.
1 Timothy 3:1-13; Acts 20:17-38; Philippians 1:1

Separation of Church and State

God established both the church and the civil government, and He gave each its own distinct sphere of operation. The government’s purposes are outlined in Romans 13:1-7 and the church’s purposes in Matthew 28:19 and 20. Neither should control the other, nor should there be an alliance between the two. Christians in a free society can properly influence government toward righteousness, which is not the same as a denomination or group of churches controlling the government.
Matthew 22:15-22; Acts 15:17-29

However, for biblical baptist churches there is no reason to allow the world to change our name.
1) The world is not changing our name. Some churches decide to do it for their own evangelistic reasons.
2) The world actually gave us the moniker, "Baptists," so rejection of the world is not a very good argument for keeping the name.

We are what we are. Anyone who has an ounce of initative can research and find out what a church teaches before they go there especially in this modern age.
Yes, but the call of evangelism is to go to the lost, not expect them to have "an ounce of initiative" and come to us. In the spirit of the Great Commission calling, we are to make the first move (in human terms) by removing barriers to communication and understanding.

By the way, when you talk to an unbeliever about Christ, do you throw out words like soteriology and/or propitiation without at least explaining the terms? Because anyone with "an ounce of initiative" could research the meaning of those words on their own time...
 
Last edited:
So, as long as Spurgeon -- the "Prince of Preachers" doesn't fit your current point, you disavow him? Sounds weird. I'd concede the point about the name Baptist before disavowing Spurgeon. (And no, I'm certainly not worshiping Spurgeon! I worship God through Christ and in the power of the Holy Spirit! But, I also recognize men that God has used down through the ages, and Spurgeon was one such man. There is much less support for the use of Baptist in our church name than for the true ministry of a man that reached thousands for Christ.

His church certainly did not crumble while he was alive and preachin'... :laugh:

Spurgeon was a great preacher used of God for a purpose. However, he was liberal on baptism. He would allow membership in his church who had been baptized in non baptist churches without being rebaptized.

BH Carroll who is the founder of the Southwestern Theological Seminary and a contemporary of Spurgeon differed with Spurgeon on that issue and Spurgeons policy of communion. He said that his church in Waco would grow and Spurgeons would collapse given the departure from steadfast policy.

He was right.
 
1) The world is not changing our name. Some churches decide to do it for their own evangelistic reasons.
2) The world actually gave us the moniker, "Baptists," so rejection of the world is not a very good argument for keeping the name.

Baptists is the name we have and is the name that we are known by. There should be no evangelistic reason for denying who you are.


Yes, but the call of evangelism is to go to the lost, not expect them to have "an ounce of initiative" and come to us. In the spirit of the Great Commission calling, we are to make the first move (in human terms) by removing barriers to communication and understanding.

We make plenty of moves toward the lost but removing your name is creating a barrier to communication not removing one.



By the way, when you talk to an unbeliever about Christ, do you throw out words like soteriology and/or propitiation without at least explaining the terms? Because anyone with "an ounce of initiative" could research the meaning of those words on their own time...

No. I only use theological terms when talking to others who know them. However a name of a denomination is not the same thing.

THere is no indicator between a non denominational church and a cult. At least with the term baptist over the door you can expect a little of what you will get.
 

Baptist Believer

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Baptists is the name we have and is the name that we are known by. There should be no evangelistic reason for denying who you are.
I don't think anyone has advocated denying who they are. I think the real issue is that people want to approach the lost with the essence of the gospel message (which is not a Baptist distinctive) so that the gospel will be heard on it's own terms without any unpleasant baggage that might be associated with the term Baptist clouding the eternal issues.

We make plenty of moves toward the lost but removing your name is creating a barrier to communication not removing one.
Unless a gospel essential is being a Baptist, then this assertion is merely an unsupported opinion.

No. I only use theological terms when talking to others who know them. However a name of a denomination is not the same thing.
Sure it is. At its best, it is a description of eight historical theological positions. And even then, lots of "Baptist" would vigorously deny that Baptists affirm separation of church and state... so even Baptists don't always know what the term means.

At worst, the term Baptist represents many terrible unChristian things.

THere is no indicator between a non denominational church and a cult. At least with the term baptist over the door you can expect a little of what you will get.
That's a dangerous belief. Westboro Baptist Church is a cult. And there are lots of little "Baptist" churches out there that are cults of personality and heresy.

The first church I ever pastored was in spiritual ruin when I first arrived because the previous pastor started getting special revelation "from God" and began reworking the doctrine of the church to fit his new revelation. The first year I was there, I preached a 50-week expositional sermon series on Romans to being the congregation back to biblical Christianity.

I hate to say it, but that's not an isolated exception. I knew of several others in the same shape in that part of West Texas.
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone has advocated denying who they are. I think the real issue is that people want to approach the lost with the essence of the gospel message (which is not a Baptist distinctive) so that the gospel will be heard on it's own terms without any unpleasant baggage that might be associated with the term Baptist clouding the eternal issues.

Then those people are non denominational and not baptist.


Unless a gospel essential is being a Baptist, then this assertion is merely an unsupported opinion.

No. Reality must be addressed and as things stand there are a lot of different denominations. People are aware of that and would like to know which one they are attending.


That's a dangerous belief. Westboro Baptist Church is a cult. And there are lots of little "Baptist" churches out there that are cults of personality and heresy.

But at least you knew they claimed to be baptist before you walked in.

The first church I ever pastored was in spiritual ruin when I first arrived because the previous pastor started getting special revelation "from God" and began reworking the doctrine of the church to fit his new revelation. The first year I was there, I preached a 50-week expositional sermon series on Romans to being the congregation back to biblical Christianity

That's good you did that. False teachers are terrible.

I hate to say it, but that's not an isolated exception. I knew of several others in the same shape in that part of West Texas.

I wish there was no heresy at all, but I do not agree that we should abandon the name baptist just because some misunderstand or misuse it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Alive in Christ

New Member
at a baptist church a person should hear the gospel preached in an expository manner from god's word. There shouldn't be a carnival or beating around the bush to get to the climax of gospel light. It should be full bore gospel preaching christ crucifed every time the doors are opened, in my view.

Amen!!!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top