What is a Baptist

[John of Japan]

An even more intriguing question is - is it necessary to have "Baptist" in the local church legal identity to qualify as baptists?

On that one I am undecided.

HankD

A BWM missionary friend named his church "Bible" because the Japanese don't know the word Baptist. When objected to he pointed to the autonomy of the local church. His Baptist church voted to make that the church name, thus literally fulfilling the autonomy of the local church in a distinctively Baptist way.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Salty]

A BWM missionary friend named his church "Bible" because the Japanese don't know the word Baptist....

What is the name you of your church in Japan.

Have you been able to coin a Japanese term to mean Baptist? :saint:

 

[DHK]

No, I haven't wiped out a portion of church history. I don't discount General Baptists at all. However, as a Particular Baptist, I don't see a distinction between my reformed theology and baptist theology.

If only Baptist churches that have reformed theology (which seems to be the way you worded it) are Baptist churches, then, yes, you have wiped out a good portion of Baptist history.

As for your points:

Separation of Church and State is popular and one that was a distinction in the early churches. Baptists in the 1600's went out of their way to distance themselves from the Anabaptists, showing that they were more peaceful and less focused on magisterial change. I am not sure there have ever been a group of Baptists as involved in the state as we are today.

That is not what separation of church and state mean. John Bunyan spent years in jail because he believed that there was a clear separation of church and state. Officially, there still isn't a separation between church and state in England. The "Church of England" is the "State Church," a Church which persecuted and murdered many believers as did the RCC. The state has no business in running the affairs of the church. In Russia only "state-approved" church are allowed the freedom to operate. All others meet secretly, "underground," as it were. So it is in many countries where Christians are persecuted and Christianity is outlawed. When the state mandates that you can no longer preach against homosexuality, they have overstepped their bounds. They have no business in the pulpit of the church. That is separation of church and state--something that Baptists have shed their blood for. Look up Baptist history of Massachusetts.

I do want to know more about #8, if you could explain what your point is with #8.

Separation ecclesiastically and morally.
a. Separation ecclesiastically. We separate from all churches that don't preach the gospel (liberal, modernist), all churches that are involved in cults, all churches that are involved in the Charismatic movement, the ecumenical movement, etc. (In general it means we have fellowship with those churches of like faith and order such as we do).
b. Separation morally. To use an example from history, Montanus separated from the churches because they had become corrupt. He emphasized purity: purity in the church, and purity in personal and holy living. This has an emphasis on sanctification; holy living.

I mentioned #3 earlier in my post. The Philadelphia Baptist Association, the first in the United States, originally rejected autonomy of the local church. They viewed the association as a type of Supreme Court. Would you consider them Baptists? I do consider them Baptists, so I would not make #3 a key distinctive.

I would consider them Baptist, but I believe they are wrong. Autonomy of the local church is a Biblical principle. You won't find denominationalism, or any of it cousins in the Bible. Paul started churches, not conventions.

#1 and #4 do not separate us from other Protestants, so I would not see them as a Baptist Distinctive. #6 would include the distinctive of Believer's Baptism, but the two ordinances are not distinctive from other Protestants.

The distinctives as a whole set us apart. Sola scriptura is very important to the Baptists. It is our final authority, our guide book for everything that we believe. That in itself is our most important distinctive. "Thus saith the Lord," not Oral Tradition, or the Book of Mormon, or any other authority.
Likewise the Priesthood of the believer. We each are priests before God--a concept so foreign to other religions, and so untaught in many of our own churches.

I agree with Biblicist who included the other major elements of orthodox Christianity. I believe that is key to separate us from most anabaptists.

It would be good if throughout history we found those believing all points that I have posted, but we won't. But we will find those believing a general consensus on most of those points throughout history.

 

[John of Japan]

What is the name you of your church in Japan.

Have you been able to coin a Japanese term to mean Baptist? :saint:

Our church is Victory Baptist Church in English, 勝利バプテスト教会,pr. Shori Baputesuto Kyokai. Japanese makes "Baptist" a loan word, pronouncing it the Japanese way, Baputesuto. When we need "immersion" to be a technical term we use 浸礼, shinrei, "washing ceremony."

 

[Ruiz]

If only Baptist churches that have reformed theology (which seems to be the way you worded it) are Baptist churches, then, yes, you have wiped out a good portion of Baptist history.

That is not what separation of church and state mean. John Bunyan spent years in jail because he believed that there was a clear separation of church and state. Officially, there still isn't a separation between church and state in England. The "Church of England" is the "State Church," a Church which persecuted and murdered many believers as did the RCC. The state has no business in running the affairs of the church. In Russia only "state-approved" church are allowed the freedom to operate. All others meet secretly, "underground," as it were. So it is in many countries where Christians are persecuted and Christianity is outlawed. When the state mandates that you can no longer preach against homosexuality, they have overstepped their bounds. They have no business in the pulpit of the church. That is separation of church and state--something that Baptists have shed their blood for. Look up Baptist history of Massachusetts.

Separation ecclesiastically and morally.
a. Separation ecclesiastically. We separate from all churches that don't preach the gospel (liberal, modernist), all churches that are involved in cults, all churches that are involved in the Charismatic movement, the ecumenical movement, etc. (In general it means we have fellowship with those churches of like faith and order such as we do).
b. Separation morally. To use an example from history, Montanus separated from the churches because they had become corrupt. He emphasized purity: purity in the church, and purity in personal and holy living. This has an emphasis on sanctification; holy living.

I would consider them Baptist, but I believe they are wrong. Autonomy of the local church is a Biblical principle. You won't find denominationalism, or any of it cousins in the Bible. Paul started churches, not conventions.

The distinctives as a whole set us apart. Sola scriptura is very important to the Baptists. It is our final authority, our guide book for everything that we believe. That in itself is our most important distinctive. "Thus saith the Lord," not Oral Tradition, or the Book of Mormon, or any other authority.
Likewise the Priesthood of the believer. We each are priests before God--a concept so foreign to other religions, and so untaught in many of our own churches.

It would be good if throughout history we found those believing all points that I have posted, but we won't. But we will find those believing a general consensus on most of those points throughout history.

The context was how I differentiated my reformed theology and my baptist theology, and I don't differentiate it. I believe General Baptists are Baptists. Telling me what I meant when I am the primary source is not helpful. While I think General Baptists are inconsistent, I think they are Baptists.

The separation items are not distinctly Baptists (an Montanists were heretics). Church discipline is generally held by all historic Christian denominations and fundamentalistic separation is fairly new. Except for liberal denominations (which I tend to question whether they are "Christian Denominations), church discipline and fellowship between distinct Christian groups have a rich heritage.

As for autonomy of the local church, I agree with you. However, reading the statements the Philadelphia Baptist Association is causing me to rethink this issue. I am hoping I don't hold to this view because of tradition but rather because it is taught in the Bible. Thus, I am going to read some more of their primary sources to see their arguments.

 

[kyredneck]

...Japanese makes "Baptist" a loan word, pronouncing it the Japanese way....

Isn't that what it is in our English language also?

 

[John of Japan]

Isn't that what it is in our English language also?

Um, well, a few centuries ago. The Japanese loan word only goes back to 1870 or so.

Another loan word in Japanese is tesuto ("test"). One day I invited a little boy to our Baputesuto church and he said, "What kind of tesuto is a bapu?" :laugh:

 

[kyredneck]

Um, well, a few centuries ago....

You don't consider 'baptize' to be essentially a Greek word that's never actually been translated into English? I guess that's what you mean by a 'loan' word.

baptizo
King James Word Usage - Total: 80
baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + (2258)&version=kjv 1

I look at the above and see a non-translated word at least 76 times.

 

[Mexdeaf]

No, I disagree

I had a Presbyterian Pastor tell me that they are just as bad as Baptists, if not worse. He said, "They don't call us split "P's" for nothing."

But, can we add "Potluck Dinners" as a Baptist Distinctive. I think we have mastered that art.

Not to mention; sweet tea, fried chicken, and nanner puddin.

 

[HankD]

A BWM missionary friend named his church "Bible" because the Japanese don't know the word Baptist. When objected to he pointed to the autonomy of the local church. His Baptist church voted to make that the church name, thus literally fulfilling the autonomy of the local church in a distinctively Baptist way.:smilewinkgrin:

Good point John.



HankD

 

[HankD]

No, I disagree

I had a Presbyterian Pastor tell me that they are just as bad as Baptists, if not worse. He said, "They don't call us split "P's" for nothing."

But, can we add "Potluck Dinners" as a Baptist Distinctive. I think we have mastered that art.

What? You mean it's human nature to be disageeable?



Not to be disagreeable, but I think "pot luck dinners" are universal as well.

HankD

 

[DHK]

The separation items are not distinctly Baptists (an Montanists were heretics). Church discipline is generally held by all historic Christian denominations and fundamentalistic separation is fairly new. Except for liberal denominations (which I tend to question whether they are "Christian Denominations), church discipline and fellowship between distinct Christian groups have a rich heritage.

Separation usually wasn't mentioned because it didn't have to be mentioned. On a personal level, a person that got saved gave up his drinking. That was a given. Nowadays, it is a societal norm to be a "social drinker." That never used to be the case. That is only an example. It seems that separation from the world must be spelled out for some.

Likewise, ecclesiastical separation did not have to be spelled out, for our history is a history written in blood. We had fellowship with believers of like faith and order that were being persecuted and martyred under the same cause. Now with these two great movements: the Charismatic and the ecumenical, there must be separation. We cannot join hands with those churches involved in error. Nowadays, since the time of Ockenga, the lines have been blurred. Before that time they were more clear cut.

 

[Ruiz]

Separation usually wasn't mentioned because it didn't have to be mentioned. On a personal level, a person that got saved gave up his drinking. That was a given. Nowadays, it is a societal norm to be a "social drinker." That never used to be the case. That is only an example. It seems that separation from the world must be spelled out for some.

Likewise, ecclesiastical separation did not have to be spelled out, for our history is a history written in blood. We had fellowship with believers of like faith and order that were being persecuted and martyred under the same cause. Now with these two great movements: the Charismatic and the ecumenical, there must be separation. We cannot join hands with those churches involved in error. Nowadays, since the time of Ockenga, the lines have been blurred. Before that time they were more clear cut.

What history are you talking about with drinking? Drinking in America did not become an issue until the mid-1800's. There were many Baptists who used alcohol in communion before that time. The 1830's saw a rise in the fight against alcohol, based not upon Scripture but upon social concerns. The "used to" followed the "used to" where alcohol was not an issue.

As for theological separation, I still think there are groups who place doctrine first. While we united with John Calvin in Geneva, the New Light Movement of Edwards, the revival of George Whitfield, and even with other groups, I agree that theology should be the basis of that uniting.

 

[Jerome]

we united with John Calvin in Geneva

Huh?

 

[Ruiz]

Huh?

What some call early "baptistic" believers, though they had yet to form a church, studied and grew under Calvin, many did become more Calvinistic. Yet, many had rejected the heretical Anabaptist sects but believed they needed more insight and spent some time with Calvin in Geneva for study.

My reference is a dissertation by Dr. Francis Nigel Lee. I actually corresponded (by e-mail) with him on this information. Dr. Lee is known to strongly oppose Anabaptists because of their heretical beliefs. However, he does give some who rejected their heresies some respect.

BTW, I do not agree with Dr. Lee on many issues, but I have no reason to reject his research and believe his peer reviewed work should be respected.

Also, Calvin did marry woman who was "baptistic".

 

[MB]

What history are you talking about with drinking? Drinking in America did not become an issue until the mid-1800's. There were many Baptists who used alcohol in communion before that time. The 1830's saw a rise in the fight against alcohol, based not upon Scripture but upon social concerns. The "used to" followed the "used to" where alcohol was not an issue.

As for theological separation, I still think there are groups who place doctrine first. While we united with John Calvin in Geneva, the New Light Movement of Edwards, the revival of George Whitfield, and even with other groups, I agree that theology should be the basis of that uniting.

I think maybe you are streching it a bit here. I've been a baptist for 52 years and I'm still against Calvinism. Will never be a Calvinist simply because I believe it's doctrine to be completely wrong. To assume you cannot be a baptist unless you accept Calvinism is silly. There are many like me, members of Southern Baptist Churches. Who are not Calvinist
MB

 

[Ruiz]

I think maybe you are streching it a bit here. I've been a baptist for 52 years and I'm still against Calvinism. Will never be a Calvinist simply because I believe it's doctrine to be completely wrong. To assume you cannot be a baptist unless you accept Calvinism is silly. There are many like me, members of Southern Baptist Churches. Who are not Calvinist
MB

MB,

I never said that Calvinism and Baptists are exclusive to each other. My point was that we united with these other groups in history. My address was that we do place an emphasis on uniting only around doctrine. We have done this throughout history with those groups that I mentioned.

In another post I mentioned that I recognized a General and a Particular branch of Baptists.

 

[preachinjesus]

What some call early "baptistic" believers, though they had yet to form a church, studied and grew under Calvin, many did become more Calvinistic. Yet, many had rejected the heretical Anabaptist sects but believed they needed more insight and spent some time with Calvin in Geneva for study.

Describing some as "baptistic" in this era is akin to calling someone a political independent without further qualification.

Calvin did attract a lot of theological and political refugees in his grand Genevan experiment. If they stayed for any length of time, and embraced anything but his version of theology, it is unique and rare.

 

[Ruiz]

Describing some as "baptistic" in this era is akin to calling someone a political independent without further qualification.

Calvin did attract a lot of theological and political refugees in his grand Genevan experiment. If they stayed for any length of time, and embraced anything but his version of theology, it is unique and rare.

I think my point was made, we united with others with solid theology.

 

[kyredneck]

Somewhere along the way there was a huge agreement that occurred between the Particular Baptists and the Reformed Church as is clearly demonstrated by their confessions that were published during the 17th century.