Marks of a Baptist/New Testament church

[Tom Butler]

The thread :"Are Baptists Protestants" has triggered some thoughts in my mind so I'm going to start a thread with the question, What are the identifying marks of a true New Testament church?

For the record, I believe the Baptist congregation I serve is a true NT church

Among the areas I want to get into:
Since most Baptist claim to be "New Testament" churches, what are the marks of a Baptist church?

Further, since there are forty-leven kinds of Baptists, are there somethings Baptists can disagree about, that are not Baptist distinctives? (Eschatology, for instance). Thus are not tests of fellowship.

Then, what are some beliefs and practices which would disqualify a congregation from calling itself Baptist, or a NT church for that matter?

I'm hoping this discussion will aid us in the debate over whether Baptists are Protestants or not.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I would say that the Baptist Distinctives are as follows:

Baptism by Immersion for Believers Only
Regenerated Church Membership
Autonomous Independent
Separation of Church and State
Soul Liberty/Priesthood of all Believers
Bible as sole authority of faith and practice.

 

[Salty]

I would say that the Baptist Distinctives are as follows:

Baptism by Immersion for Believers Only
Regenerated Church Membership
Autonomous Independent
Separation of Church and State
Soul Liberty/Priesthood of all Believers
Bible as sole authority of faith and practice.

dis·tinc·tive

adjective \di-ˈstiŋ(k)-tiv\ .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; }
: having a quality or characteristic that makes a person or thing different from others : different in a way that is easy to notice

Many groups other than Baptist believe those items listed above.....

 

[pinoybaptist]

dis·tinc·tive

adjective \di-ˈstiŋ(k)-tiv\ .headword .ld_on_collegiate { margin:10px 0 0 0;padding:0 0 0 19px; width: 405px;} .ld_on_collegiate p {margin:0 0 10px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px; } .ld_on_collegiate p.bottom_entry {margin:0 0 3px 0;padding:0;line-height:20px;} #mwEntryData div.headword .ld_on_collegiate p em, .ld_on_collegiate p em { color: black; font-weight: normal; } #mwEntryData div.headword + div.d { margin-top: -7px; } .ld_on_collegiate .bnote { font-weight: bold; } .ld_on_collegiate .sl, .ld_on_collegiate .ssl { font-style: italic; }
: having a quality or characteristic that makes a person or thing different from others : different in a way that is easy to notice

Many groups other than Baptist believe those items listed above.....

I guess that's why at least one order I know of came out with not just the Baptust Bride crap but THEIR order the only true Baptist Bride dog dung doctrine.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The Southern Baptist Church has only two "distinctives" though they don't call them that. We call them "ordinances," and they are the Lord's Supper (communion) and baptism by immersion.

Many other brands of Baptist adopt the Baptist Faith and Message, or some variation of it, as their own guideline as well. It describes what we believe and provides Scriptural support for those beliefs.

There is nothing to prevent a church from calling itself "Baptist" regardless of what it believes. A prime example is that horrendous group of people 60 miles west of me in Topeka, calling themselves "Westboro Baptist Church" even though they never were affiliated with any Baptist denomination of any sort.

 

[InTheLight]

I would say that the Baptist Distinctives are as follows:

Baptism by Immersion for Believers Only
Regenerated Church Membership
Autonomous Independent
Separation of Church and State
Soul Liberty/Priesthood of all Believers
Bible as sole authority of faith and practice.

That's a pretty good list.

Many groups other than Baptist believe those items listed above.....

All of them simultaneously? Supposing they do--what denomination are they?

 

[Salty]

That's a pretty good list.



All of them simultaneously? Supposing they do--what denomination are they?

Bible churches / non-denominational

 

[Salty]

..., calling themselves "Westboro Baptist Church" even though they never were affiliated with any Baptist denomination of any sort.

Actually, Phelps was ordained by East Side Baptist Church, a SBC church - and then founded Westboro as a mission church of East Side. Shortly thereafter Westboro broke all connections with the SBC.

From The Gospel Coalition

From The Pathway

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Actually, Phelps was ordained by East Side Baptist Church, a SBC church - and then founded Westboro as a mission church of East Side. Shortly thereafter Westboro broke all connections with the SBC.

From The Gospel Coalition

From The Pathway

He actually never affiliated with the SBC. It was assumed by Eastside that Westboro would become an SBC church, but Phelps never applied for affiliation, and the SBC has denounced Westboro almost from the start.

 

[preachinjesus]

For the record, I believe the Baptist congregation I serve is a true NT church

I believe it is one of the forms of church available in the NT.

Since most Baptist claim to be "New Testament" churches, what are the marks of a Baptist church?

I've always found the Baptist acrostic to be pretty good, when it is done historically it is helpful:

B - Believer's baptism by immersion
A - Autonomy of the local church
P - Priesthood of the believer
T - Two ordinances: (baptism, Lord's Supper)
I - Inspired and authoritative Bible
S - Separation of church and state
T - Two offices: (pastor, deacon)

Some folks add a last "S" to mean "soul liberty" but that isn't always agreed upon historically. I believe that when coupled together, these distinguish Baptists from other denominations. That said, most non-denim churches are Baptist in polity and autonomy.

Further, since there are forty-leven kinds of Baptists, are there somethings Baptists can disagree about, that are not Baptist distinctives? (Eschatology, for instance). Thus are not tests of fellowship.

There are certainly things Baptist can, and do, disagree about. Eschatology being a good example. In terms of distinctives, I've only really seen security of the believer and frequency of Lord's Supper. There are some others too, including the nature of women in ministry, worship style, nature of missions support, and such that will be areas goodly Baptists can respectfully disagree.

Then, what are some beliefs and practices which would disqualify a congregation from calling itself Baptist, or a NT church for that matter?

Well, since I don't hold Baptists to be the only NT church form, I'll answer these independently.

For Baptists, if you're not immersing believers and if you believe in sacramental theology you've pretty much gone away from the strongest Baptist distinctives. Keep in mind that historically, it was the Baptists in England who recovered believers baptism by immersion. Likewise, Baptists have, since the beginning, eschewed sacramental theology and any notion of the ordinances being salvific.

As for marks of the NT church, well that's a much broader category. I'm not Mark Dever, but there are some marks of the NT church seem to find themselves in the various ecclesiologies within the NT:
- Preaching of the Gospel
- Baptism as means of initiation or rite of church
- Orthodox theology in line with the regula fide of the Apostles
- Redeemed membership (they understood this differently than we do)
- Just care for each other and those outside the local community
- Regular meeting
- Some kind of leadership, not inherently hierarchical though
- Discipline of members
- Openness to new members/converts
- Equipping and training in matters of ethics, theology, and worship

And I do think Baptists are Protestants, if for no other reason than Baptists are the first ones willing to protest something.


...and because they arose from (in some manner) the Radical Reformation.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

And I do think Baptists are Protestants, if for no other reason than Baptists are the first ones willing to protest something.

... but only after forming a committee, which thereupon appoints four subcommittees, before ultimately approving the protest. :laugh:

 

[InTheLight]

Bible churches / non-denominational

And should you do a historical study of these churches how many of them once had "Baptist" in their title and dropped it?

 

[Salty]

And should you do a historical study of these churches how many of them once had "Baptist" in their title and dropped it?

Some but not all

 

[Bob Alkire]

I believe it is one of the forms of church available in the NT.



I've always found the Baptist acrostic to be pretty good, when it is done historically it is helpful:

B - Believer's baptism by immersion
A - Autonomy of the local church
P - Priesthood of the believer
T - Two ordinances: (baptism, Lord's Supper)
I - Inspired and authoritative Bible
S - Separation of church and state
T - Two offices: (pastor, deacon)

Some folks add a last "S" to mean "soul liberty" but that isn't always agreed upon historically. I believe that when coupled together, these distinguish Baptists from other denominations. That said, most non-denim churches are Baptist in polity and autonomy.

I like and believe the Baptist acrostic you noted above. The first Baptist Church that I became a member of taught that along with along with soul liberty.

And I do think Baptists are Protestants, if for no other reason than Baptists are the first ones willing to protest something.


...and because they arose from (in some manner) the Radical Reformation.

I one who does not think Baptist are Protestants.

 

[Salty]

Who came up with the acrostic - why JOHN THE BAPTIST - of course!!!

...I've always found the Baptist acrostic to be pretty good, when it is done historically it is helpful:

B - Believer's baptism by immersion
A - Autonomy of the local church
P - Priesthood of the believer
T - Two ordinances: (baptism, Lord's Supper)
I - Inspired and authoritative Bible
S - Separation of church and state
T - Two offices: (pastor, deacon)

Some folks add a last "S" to mean "soul liberty" but that isn't always agreed upon historically. ...

For those of you are interested as to the origins of the acrostic, it was authored by Dr. L. Duane Brown, a personal friend of mine. It was published in the 28 Oct, 2010 issue of the Baptist Bulletin, the official organ of the General Association of Regular Baptist Churches (GARBC).
It is interesting to note that the second paragraph of the article stated: Baptist beliefs developed during the 1600s in several different places, led by local congregations that were eventually named “Baptist” by detractors who sought to discredit the growing movement

 

[Yeshua1]

The thread :"Are Baptists Protestants" has triggered some thoughts in my mind so I'm going to start a thread with the question, What are the identifying marks of a true New Testament church?

For the record, I believe the Baptist congregation I serve is a true NT church

Among the areas I want to get into:
Since most Baptist claim to be "New Testament" churches, what are the marks of a Baptist church?

Further, since there are forty-leven kinds of Baptists, are there somethings Baptists can disagree about, that are not Baptist distinctives? (Eschatology, for instance). Thus are not tests of fellowship.

Then, what are some beliefs and practices which would disqualify a congregation from calling itself Baptist, or a NT church for that matter?

I'm hoping this discussion will aid us in the debate over whether Baptists are Protestants or not.

Priesthood of all believers
Right to decide what we hold with, apart from denominational stances/ as long as withing bounds of orthodoxy
Bible ONLY authority source for teaching/doctrines/practices, only inspired source
Seperation between church/state regarding religious autonomy
Local autonomy
Gospel of saved by grace alone, thru faith alone

 

[Van]

Top down or bottom up? When separatists separated from the Church of England, who had the authority to baptize? Because of the "priesthood" of all or any believers, they had the authority to baptize themselves.

Now if you are a top down authoritarian, and trace your authority back to Peter, or Calvin or Luther, these self baptizing folks were an affront, not really Protestants who had received their authority through the Catholic line.

How can we make fun of them, disparage them and belittle those who baptize themselves. Oh I know, lets call them Anabaptists.

 

[prophet]

Top down or bottom up? When separatists separated from the Church of England, who had the authority to baptize? Because of the "priesthood" of all or any believers, they had the authority to baptize themselves.

Now if you are a top down authoritarian, and trace your authority back to Peter, or Calvin or Luther, these self baptizing folks were an affront, not really Protestants who had received their authority through the Catholic line.

How can we make fun of them, disparage them and belittle those who baptize themselves. Oh I know, lets call them Anabaptists.

Right on.

 

[Bro. James]

Top down or bottom up? When separatists separated from the Church of England, who had the authority to baptize? Because of the "priesthood" of all or any believers, they had the authority to baptize themselves.

Now if you are a top down authoritarian, and trace your authority back to Peter, or Calvin or Luther, these self baptizing folks were an affront, not really Protestants who had received their authority through the Catholic line.

How can we make fun of them, disparage them and belittle those who baptize themselves. Oh I know, lets call them Anabaptists.

There is still a dilemma/trilemma of authority in this discussion. If the holy see has authority as given in Mt. 28 where Jesus said He had all authority in heaven and earth, the holy see has vested this authority on no other entity. All those religious outside the prevue of the Vatican are usurpers including the Church of England which was birth by Henry VIII.

The Vatican has either had authority or not since the beginning. Jesus vested this authority in the First Church, see Mt. 20:16-20. Just who the usurpers are remains a major bone of contention.

Who has the authority to baptize is what got the saints in so much trouble with the religious powers that be--also where the term Anabaptist came from. These poor saints refused to baptize their infants and disallowed any baptisms from pedobaptists as null and void of authority. This caused no small amount of consternation in Rome, Wittenburg and Geneva. Many of these saints died(were killed) along with their infants.

How soon we have forgotten.

True New testament Churches, what ever their names, were never part of Rome or the daughters of Rome.

The Lord knows them that are His.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Tom Butler]

My post after this one is basically a double post, so I've zapped this one. Another question to go with the ones in the next post:

Those who are anti-succession tend to pooh-pooh those faith groups (Petrobrusians, Lollards, etc) as not Baptistic for various reasons, which damages any claim of succession. What were some of those disqualifying aberrations?