• 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!

Which Baptist distinctive.....

M

Michael Wrenn

New Member
are you the most attached to, and why?

Which one would you miss the most if you could not go to a Baptist church; which one would be the hardest to give up?
 
B

Bronconagurski

New Member
Michael Wrenn said:
are you the most attached to, and why?

Which one would you miss the most if you could not go to a Baptist church; which one would be the hardest to give up?
Click to expand...

Since you don't accept eternal security, I will give you another.

Testimony of being born again and Baptism by immersion required for Church membership.
 
preachinjesus

preachinjesus

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Honestly, I've gotta say that in terms of Baptist distinctives believer's baptism by immersion is really the one I would stick to the most. It is one of the principle reasons whhy I've stayed Baptist during my journey. (There are other reasons)

I don't see how, when one considers NT theology, you can come up with another option for believers. Though I respect other traditions, believer's baptism is a standard and practice which I believe is both NT and historical. When we look at the early church that is the pattern (there is a bit of infant baptism going on but that is not consistent.)

Anyhoo...that's my one.
 
dcorbett

dcorbett

Active Member
Site Supporter
Priesthood of the Believer

Every born-again believer has direct access to the throne of God. Therefore, since every child of God shares in the priesthood of the believers, all have the same right as ordained ministers to communicate with God, interpret Scripture, and minister in Christ's name. This is first and foremost a matter of responsibility and servanthood, not privilege and license.
 
Squire Robertsson

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
Two that are twins:
Regenerate, Immersed Church Membership
Immersion of Believers and Lord's Supper the Only Two Ordinances. (Though, I can go along with foot washing.)
 
M

Michael Wrenn

New Member
Thank you all for your responses.

I have three that I would miss terribly -- I can't narrow it to just one. The three are: autonomy of the local church; individual soul liberty; priesthood of the believer. These all seem intertwined.

About autonomy: I believe that the local church should be able to do as they feel led without any person or group of people outside interfering -- even if I think that local church is grievously wrong.

Other denominations believe in and practice autonomy, and some may actually have more soul liberty than Baptist churches, but I don't know of any other denomination which believes in the priesthood of the believer like the Baptists do.

Anyway, I have been a member of two denominations other than Baptist, and I have worshiped in almost every denomination to be found in these parts, but none compare to the Baptist distinctives.

My views are very diverse, encompassing elements of several denominations, but mostly my core beliefs, which I cherish, are decidedly Baptist, and those I mentioned are the ones I cherish the most and would be the hardest to give up.
 
Salty

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Michael Wrenn said:
are you the most attached to, and why?

Which one would you miss the most if you could not go to a Baptist church; which one would be the hardest to give up?
Click to expand...

As long as there are two or three... So with my wife - if there was no Baptist church to attend - we would start one.
Problem solved
 
1

12strings

Active Member
Michael Wrenn said:
Thank you all for your responses.

I have three that I would miss terribly -- I can't narrow it to just one. The three are: autonomy of the local church; individual soul liberty; priesthood of the believer. These all seem intertwined.

About autonomy: I believe that the local church should be able to do as they feel led without any person or group of people outside interfering -- even if I think that local church is grievously wrong.

Other denominations believe in and practice autonomy, and some may actually have more soul liberty than Baptist churches, but I don't know of any other denomination which believes in the priesthood of the believer like the Baptists do.

Anyway, I have been a member of two denominations other than Baptist, and I have worshiped in almost every denomination to be found in these parts, but none compare to the Baptist distinctives.

My views are very diverse, encompassing elements of several denominations, but mostly my core beliefs, which I cherish, are decidedly Baptist, and those I mentioned are the ones I cherish the most and would be the hardest to give up.
Click to expand...


I was going to say "believer's Baptism" because that is probably the ONLY baptist distincive that ALL baptists on this board would agree with.

We all would probalby agree with the ones you listed here, but would define them in different ways.

That said, I might put local church autonomy above believer's baptism for this reason: I think I could easily and with a clear consience attend a church that practiced believer's baptism, but which also accepted as members those who were fully convinced that their prior Presby or Methodist infant Baptism was a true and valid baptism. I attended a non-denominational church that held that position for 2 years. (they could only do that due to their local church autonomy).

That said, I have this question for you: Is the CAC a single church, or an association...and if it is an association of several local churches...how do they have autonomy if there is a CAC statement of beliefs (like about homosexuality, for example) that CANNOT BE CHANGED). does that no infringe on each local assembly's autonomy to decide for themselves on that issue, or ordaining women?
 
M

Michael Wrenn

New Member
12strings said:
I was going to say "believer's Baptism" because that is probably the ONLY baptist distincive that ALL baptists on this board would agree with.

We all would probalby agree with the ones you listed here, but would define them in different ways.

That said, I might put local church autonomy above believer's baptism for this reason: I think I could easily and with a clear consience attend a church that practiced believer's baptism, but which also accepted as members those who were fully convinced that their prior Presby or Methodist infant Baptism was a true and valid baptism. I attended a non-denominational church that held that position for 2 years. (they could only do that due to their local church autonomy).

That said, I have this question for you: Is the CAC a single church, or an association...and if it is an association of several local churches...how do they have autonomy if there is a CAC statement of beliefs (like about homosexuality, for example) that CANNOT BE CHANGED). does that no infringe on each local assembly's autonomy to decide for themselves on that issue, or ordaining women?
Click to expand...

The CAC is a young communion, and I admit the polity is experimental; probably nothing like it exists or has existed before. I also can see how it could be rather messy, for the reasons you stated. So far, it has not been, but I can see how it could be.

I would say that the CAC is both a single church and an association. Our ministers affirm the Statement of Principles. They voluntarily join, but part of that is affirmation of the Principles. If at any time they find themselves in disagreement where there is not liberty of conscience allowed -- as in homosexual unions or ordinations -- they understand that they have voluntarily taken themselves out of the Communion. The same with congregations. Also, the CAC name is protected by a Service Mark, whereby if another group wanted to call themselves Celtic Anabaptist and practice apostate Christianity, they would have to come up with some variation on the denominational name. Is that authoritarian? Some would say so. But I am determined to protect traditional ethics; that's why these matters are not subject to vote, like the mainline Presbyterians and Episcopalians have done.

As for ordination of women, this is an area where the local congregation could decide. We ordain women; that's in our Principles, but we would not force a local congregation to do so. If they didn't believe in it, that's their business.

So, we believe in and practice liberty of conscience on most doctrinal matters, but not so much on moral and ethical matters. We have a communion-wide Statement of Principles with liberty in their use, except for traditional moral values which we will not compromise. We have some hierarchy, but in the Celtic-relational sense, not the Catholic. So, we combine an episcopal structure with a congregational structure with local church autonomy -- the best of the ancient Celtic church and Baptist/Anabaptist heritage.

Hope that makes at least some sense. :)
 
1

12strings

Active Member
Michael Wrenn said:
The CAC is a young communion, and I admit the polity is experimental; probably nothing like it exists or has existed before. I also can see how it could be rather messy, for the reasons you stated. So far, it has not been, but I can see how it could be.

I would say that the CAC is both a single church and an association. Our ministers affirm the Statement of Principles. They voluntarily join, but part of that is affirmation of the Principles. If at any time they find themselves in disagreement where there is not liberty of conscience allowed -- as in homosexual unions or ordinations -- they understand that they have voluntarily taken themselves out of the Communion. The same with congregations. Also, the CAC name is protected by a Service Mark, whereby if another group wanted to call themselves Celtic Anabaptist and practice apostate Christianity, they would have to come up with some variation on the denominational name. Is that authoritarian? Some would say so. But I am determined to protect traditional ethics; that's why these matters are not subject to vote, like the mainline Presbyterians and Episcopalians have done.

As for ordination of women, this is an area where the local congregation could decide. We ordain women; that's in our Principles, but we would not force a local congregation to do so. If they didn't believe in it, that's their business.

So, we believe in and practice liberty of conscience on most doctrinal matters, but not so much on moral and ethical matters. We have a communion-wide Statement of Principles with liberty in their use, except for traditional moral values which we will not compromise. We have some hierarchy, but in the Celtic-relational sense, not the Catholic. So, we combine an episcopal structure with a congregational structure with local church autonomy -- the best of the ancient Celtic church and Baptist/Anabaptist heritage.

Hope that makes at least some sense. :)
Click to expand...

I'm going to start another thread based on some of your comments here unrelated to this threads topic...(morals vs doctrine).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top