The Baptist Name

[rlvaughn]

In The Baptist Name, Rick Shrader gives five reasons in favor of the name Baptist for our churches.

1. Denominational names (I mean, of course, the one which describes you) are not divisive but unifying because they are up front and honest.
2. The willingness to discard the name Baptist is due more to a loathing of tradition than to a concern for the unchurched.
3. If these denominational names fade away, others like them will take their place.
4. The recognition of our doctrine is still the most important testimony we have.
5. I’m more concerned with not saying enough with the name Baptist than fearing I have said too much.

 

[Bro. James]

The biggest cause of confusion: many Baptists are not aware that True Baptists are not rooted in the so-called Protestant reformation of the Catholic church. True Baptists have never been a part of Rome. In fact Rome has persecuted them fiercely, to the death, for not bowing to the pope. The reformers have not been their friends either.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Reformed]

In The Baptist Name, Rick Shrader gives five reasons in favor of the name Baptist for our churches.

1. Denominational names (I mean, of course, the one which describes you) are not divisive but unifying because they are up front and honest.
2. The willingness to discard the name Baptist is due more to a loathing of tradition than to a concern for the unchurched.
3. If these denominational names fade away, others like them will take their place.
4. The recognition of our doctrine is still the most important testimony we have.
5. I’m more concerned with not saying enough with the name Baptist than fearing I have said too much.

Concur. Good post.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[HankD]

*sigh* Baptist unity is a myth. Just when you think Baptists can stand together on the things that unite them we have to deal with nonsense like the post I quoted.

Even the Catholic Church has internal turmoil especially after Vatican II.

Baptists unity (fragile as it is) centers around the Baptist distinctives.

When I move or go on vacation "Baptist" is the focus of my search for worship and fellowship.

It does narrow the field.

HankD

 

[Deacon]

The name Baptist covers wide and diverse traditions, doctrines, and practices.

Differences of perception about what a Baptist represents are quite prominent between different geographic areas and between rural areas and metropolitan areas.

#1 - Baptists are not particularly denominational.
#2 - Baptists are not particularly traditionalists.
#3 - Denominations and their names come and go, we're not devoted to the name but to a Person.
#4/5 - Doctrine is important to those that believe them - it is our convictions that draw us together.
Perception is important to those outsider who we want to draw in.

When the name Baptist become associated with contrary doctrine and practices the choice become to fight to preserve a traditional name or to create new associations.

The choice to use or not use the name Baptist is a local decision based on many different factors.

Rob

 

[Revmitchell]

In The Baptist Name, Rick Shrader gives five reasons in favor of the name Baptist for our churches.

1. Denominational names (I mean, of course, the one which describes you) are not divisive but unifying because they are up front and honest.

There are many ways to be upfront and honest. I know of many churches which do not put Baptist in the name but place on their sign something like "Member of Southern Baptist Convention".

1. The willingness to discard the name Baptist is due more to a loathing of tradition than to a concern for the unchurched.

Churches with names that only speak to the membership are inward focused churches. I like Paul's attitude to those outside the church I Corinthians 9:19-23

1. If these denominational names fade away, others like them will take their place.

wow, there are two informal fallcies going on here first the black and white fallacy and then the begging the question fallacy.

1. The recognition of our doctrine is still the most important testimony we have.

We are witnesses of Jesus not Baptists

1. I’m more concerned with not saying enough with the name Baptist than fearing I have said too much.

There is a time and a place to make sure people know what our doctrine is. The name Baptist on the sign out front does not tell anyone which doctrines we hold to. Most people do not know what Baptist doctrines are. The sign is not the answer but it can begin with a new members class. There are many other options.

I would say the op is the worst argument I have seen to date on this issue.

 

[Van]

The thought is that the non-believing general public hold a negative view of Baptists. Some of this view, I suppose has been earned, but the godless left has presented plenty of negativity toward Baptists to bolster their anti-Christian agenda. Many churches, as part of their outreach strategy, have changed their name to "non-denominational names" such as Atlantic Coast Church.

The wisdom of the change should be in the pudding, what was the growth pattern in the four years before the change and in the four years following the change.

 

[InTheLight]

In The Baptist Name, Rick Shrader gives five reasons in favor of the name Baptist for our churches.
1. Denominational names (I mean, of course, the one which describes you) are not divisive but unifying because they are up front and honest.

Unifying to the denomination, yes. Unifying to people of other denominations, people who grew up in other denominations but no longer attend, or the unchurched? No.

2. The willingness to discard the name Baptist is due more to a loathing of tradition than to a concern for the unchurched.

Disagree. And how would the writer know this anyway?

3. If these denominational names fade away, others like them will take their place.

When will this start to happen? Denominational names were beginning to be abandoned in the late 70's. That's 40 years ago. I don't see other taking their place. What new denominational names have cropped up? For example, is Calvary Chapel a denominational name?

The recognition of our doctrine is still the most important testimony we have.

No, recognition of Jesus as the Son of God and belief in him as resurrected Savior is our testimony. Doctrine is dogma.

I’m more concerned with not saying enough with the name Baptist than fearing I have said too much.

Agreed. I would prefer that churches use the term Baptist as an identifier. But really, all I can expect for sure is that they baptize believers by immersion and believe in a symbolic Lord's Supper.

 

[rlvaughn]

I grew up in a time and region where Baptists and Campbellites (um, I mean Churches of Christ) debated over the proper name of the church. I lived to see Baptists (for the most part) give up that debate, and now I've lived long enough to see many Baptist give up or advocate giving up the name Baptist. After saying that, to be clear -- I do not advocate that "Baptist" is a scriptural name for a church or that we need to use that name. I am fine with Street Name Church, Community Name Church, The Church on Main Street, and on and on.

Nevertheless, I'm not a fan of cutesy names, and I also don't track with the reasons that some want to give up the name. Though this doesn't apply to all, I know at least some who use it as a sort of deception in presenting themselves to the world as something they are not. I don't see (hardly) anyone advocating that it is wrong (i.e., unscriptural) to use the name Baptist, so this is mostly a debate of expediency.

There have been a lot of churches that dropped the name Baptist. I am now noticing a trend of Baptist organizations to drop the name Baptist. The Conservative Baptist Conflict thread got me thinking about this.

There was a time this body was the Conservative Baptist Association of America. Somewhere deep down they may still be. But on their web site they are CBAmerica. We're not told what the "C" and "B" stand for (it may be hidden in there somewhere). Not sure you'll see "Baptist" on their website other than in the "church search" feature. I kind of think of them as the KFC of Baptists. A brand name devolves into an assortment of letters with no reference to the original meaning and eventually people may even forget what it stands for.

Baptist General Conference is now Converge (a movement of over 1300 churches). American Baptists of the West is now Growing Healthy Churches. Over 180 former ABCUSA Baptist Churches in the west and Hawaii is now Transformation Ministries.

There also seems to be a tendency for these groups to avoid words like association, conference or convention in favor of calling themselves a "movement" or "network" of churches. A lot of this seems to be about marketing, which is another thing that bothers me about it.

 

[Bro. James]

World History and Church History have been seriously skewed by the so-called holy see.

Much of what is presented as Church History in the Catholic Encyclopedia is filled with Vatican bias, not necessarily based on a preponderance of evidence. Remember the Holy Catholic Church controlled the world for many centuries--still does in many areas.

Several people have tried and failed to reform Rome from within, several have tried to reform Rome from without. How does one reform apostasy from within or without? Rome is either who she claims to be or she is an apostate usurper. Her claims are either valid or invalid. It cannot be: all of the above. If Rome has the authority to ecclesia, then all others are without authority. All should bow to Rome. If Rome is the usurper, she is invalid and so are her daughters--for the same reason. See "Death by Three Horns."

Denomination is an overused Romish word--mostly to identify those who have tried to reform Rome. True Baptists never tried to reform Rome. They have never been a part of Rome.

This is not about a name, but rather a faith and practice. Check out the doctrines of baptism and Lord's supper in light of infant baptism and open communion. This separates the wheat from the tares in a sense.

What would one expect to find taught in a place with the sign: Grace Bible Baptist, Landmark, Missionary, Fundamental. The name can say a lot--especially for those who are not ecumenical.

Jesus asks: "Why do you call me Lord and do not what I say?" See Luke 6:46.

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Ziggy]

rlvaughn: I know of many churches which do not put Baptist in the name but place on their sign something like "Member of Southern Baptist Convention".

Or (more likely as I have seen) "SBC" in very small letters that easily could be overlooked.

 

[Reformed]

Maybe it's just me and my Jersey personality, but I like to fly my colors high up on the mast. I believe in full disclosure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[rlvaughn]

rlvaughn: I know of many churches which do not put Baptist in the name but place on their sign something like "Member of Southern Baptist Convention".

Or (more likely as I have seen) "SBC" in very small letters that easily could be overlooked.

Yes, that is fairly common, and also you can recognize some churches by the symbols they use. If I see something like this, I expect it to be Southern Baptist.

We have a lot of churches around here that are American Baptist Association and Baptist Missionary Association, and it is fairly common to see "ABA" or BMAA" on their signs to mark them out to those in the know (but most of them don't leave off "Baptist").

 

[Revmitchell]

The thought is that the non-believing general public hold a negative view of Baptists. Some of this view, I suppose has been earned, but the godless left has presented plenty of negativity toward Baptists to bolster their anti-Christian agenda. Many churches, as part of their outreach strategy, have changed their name to "non-denominational names" such as Atlantic Coast Church.

The wisdom of the change should be in the pudding, what was the growth pattern in the four years before the change and in the four years following the change.

If someone is leaving out the word "baptist" to hide who they are then that is dishonest and not what a Christ centered church should engage in. However, there are a plethora of reasons not to include Baptist in the name not all of which include hiding who one is.

 

[The Biblicist]

There were no denominational titles found in the New Testament because there was no need to distinguish them from any other denomination as there were no denominations to be distinguished from.

The genitive case was the normal case used to describe the churches "of Christ" and it was designed to convey personal possession by God.


However, "the Baptist" is a Biblical descriptive noun for a type of ministry, method and message from which the New Testament congregation at Jerusalem was composed. Mark states that the ministry of "John the Baptist" was the "beginning of the gospel of Christ" (Mk.1:1) rather than part of the Old Testament Law covenant or a transitional ministry. Instead it was the foundational ministry that supplied Christ with the proper materials to form the first New Covenant congregation (Acts 1:21-22).

The descriptive definite noun "the Baptist" was not the birth name of John, but was given to him by the Holy Spirit to describe his message, mission and method. His message was the gospel of Christ (Jn. 3:36) that announced the kingdom in the person of the king which was his mission. His method was to immerse believers in his message and then disciple them and thereby made them a people ready for Christ to form his congregation. This very same ministry, mission and method Jesus continued (Jn. 4:1-2) and then commissioned the very same ministry, mission and method in the Great Commission (Mt.28:19-20) that looks forward to the next coming of the King with a physical kingdom.

 

[rlvaughn]

However, there are a plethora of reasons not to include Baptist in the name not all of which include hiding who one is.

What would you consider some of the reasons to not include Baptist in the church name?

 

[Revmitchell]

What would you consider some of the reasons to not include Baptist in the church name?

I believe the name of the church should be understandable and or relevant by everyone. If its not then maybe a name change is in order.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What would you consider some of the reasons to not include Baptist in the church name?

My church was founded 51 years ago, at a time when Dr Lloyd-Jones was calling churches to come out of liberal, compromised denominations (that included the Baptist Union) and form an alliance of independent evangelical churches. My church's founder was a retired Baptist pastor who was influenced by Lloyd-Jones, and although it has always held to believers' baptism by immersion, he did not want to include the name 'Baptist in the title, partly because there were already two Baptist Union churches in the town, and partly because he wanted to draw people of all denominations, especially Anglicans, to the church.

So the church started its life as 'Exmouth Independent Evangelical Church' but that's a bit of a mouthful and folk tended to call us 'Scott Drive Church' after its location. So about 10 years ago the decision was made to call it just that. We are the church in Scott Drive and we welcome everyone who loves the Lord Jesus to come and join us. When we have had Anglicans or lapsed Roman Catholics come and join us, after we have taught them the Bible for a while, we have had no problem in getting them to see that they need to be baptized according to Scripture

 

[rlvaughn]

So the church started its life as 'Exmouth Independent Evangelical Church' but that's a bit of a mouthful and folk tended to call us 'Scott Drive Church' after its location. So about 10 years ago the decision was made to call it just that. We are the church in Scott Drive and we welcome everyone who loves the Lord Jesus to come and join us. When we have had Anglicans or lapsed Roman Catholics come and join us, after we have taught them the Bible for a while, we have had no problem in getting them to see that they need to be baptized according to Scripture

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I have no problem with names such as the church on Scott Drive. But to better understand your situation there in England, are you saying that using the name "Baptist" would not seem welcoming to Anglicans and Roman Catholics, but that "Independent Evangelical" would be? I'm just thinking that they obviously know they aren't going to an Anglican or Roman Catholic Church. Our church went for a number of years with no signage or name posted whatsoever on the exterior of church house or property, but has had a sign that says "Old Prospect Baptist Church" for 30 or 40 years. I can't say that either way seems to make any difference.

If by "welcoming" you mean wanting them to attend and treating them decently when they do, I think we are welcoming. On the other hand, we do not welcome anyone into church fellowship without a credible statement of faith and baptism by immersion (which is what I assume you meant also).

 

[rlvaughn]

I believe the name of the church should be understandable and or relevant by everyone. If its not then maybe a name change is in order.

Relevant to everyone seems like a pretty tall order. Do you mean everyone in the church, everyone who might be invited to attend, both, or everyone everyone?