Baptist Distinctives

If someone asks me my beliefs, I say I am Christian, not Baptist.

However, for which church I attend or join, baptist distinctives do count, although I speak in churches that are not Baptist in the capacity of my ministry (speaking not teaching or preaching).

If Baptist distinctives are not held to, the church could become charismatic, for example. I believe that charismatic Christians are my brothers and sisters in the Lord; however, I would not want to attend or belong to a charismatic church.

It seems like today it's the fashion to blur lines rather than draw them; I think can be very problematic for a church if this is the case (as long as lines drawn are not legalistic but just make the beliefs clear).

 

Tom this is the historic baptist position that I've stated.

 

This too, Tom is the historic baptist position. I copied both directly from the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

 

Hi JC,

Good luck taking up the mantle for Baptists who have long died. I believe it was either Chesterton or Lewis that talked of chronological snobbery when we only let the living dictate things. Baptists from the 17th century in England typically held to covenant theology (even General Baptists), they had a sacramental view of both baptism and the Lord's Supper (which is one reason why they only baptized believers), and so on. These were not rogue beliefs but things espoused by their best representatives and included in their creeds and confessions.

Surely whatever distinctives we list today should include their beliefs as well, should it not?

I've pointed these things out before to the writer of the OP, but history repeats itself on this board. As a joke I would nominate ignorance of Baptist history as a Baptist distinctive for Baptists of the last hundred years in America.

BJ

 

How odd then that they scrupulously avoided using the word sacrament in their confession of faith.

 

this si sad, especially now a days with church hoppers. People who are always moving their membership and not caring if it is a different denomination with different beliefs, and never actually knowing what a particular church beleives. They don't know enough about their Baptist distinctives to know a new church doesn't line up with what they think they've always beleived.

 

I don't know why believing scripture should divide christians.

 

Hi Jerome,

Yes, I said typically and the Second London Confession has those differences with the WCF that your source highlights. Churches back then did differ on those things and they sought their confession to include only matters that they all agreed on. The Second London Confession is just one of many confessions from the century. I would also add that "ordinance" had a different meaning back then. If you are interested on Baptist sacramentalism from this period, I highly recommend the works of Stanley Fowler and Anthony Cross from Paternoster's excellent series on Baptist history. Fowler includes sources from confessions and creeds in his case as well as tracts by prominent Baptist leaders of the period.

BJ

 

Drfuss: Yes, the OP did ask for what Baptist Distinctive are and not if there should be any. However, I just answered you questions. Since I don't think there should be Baptist Distinctives, I'll drop out of this.

 

My list of Baptist Distinctives?

Why, there's only ONE: Jesus Christ:godisgood:

 

I like the list from Bill Pinson

I feel they are important especially today with all emphasis on everybody getting along and not letting doctrine divide us. That's fine if what you want to do is feed the hungry or house the homeless but if you are going to have a church and do the work of the church I think you should be willing to identify what type of church you are going to be.

Why is that Baptists are willing to hide who they are and yet Hindus or Islam doesn't feel the need to hide who they are and what they stand for? A sad commentary on the current church.

 

Historically, the doctrines that seemed to be most defining of Baptists has been congregational governance and opposition to infant baptism. Currently, there are many non-Baptist denominations, particularly non-denominational churches, that also hold to these same positions. Most of them seem to have been founded in the US where Baptists are most prominent.

While I am a baptist and agree with the historical development of these theologies, I would not describe these two doctrines as being closest to modeling the 1st century church, a goal that I do not consider to be important or biblically mandated.

 

The immersion part of what you say is not historically accurate unless you don't consider the early General Baptists to be Baptist.

Without a time machine, no current churches can call themselves New Testament churches. New Testament churches stopped existing once the writing of the New Testament was finished. NT churches had their flaws that Paul, Peter and other apostles tried to correct through their writings. They also had some good qualities that we can learn from and some may try to mimic like the selling of possessions to support ministries. But there is no biblical mandate that all churches should mimic any particular church.

 

You forgot another one:

Abstinence from alcohol.

ALSO> I CAN read and understand the "Flowery" language of the 17th century. The view of Baptism today is not the same as the view espoused by those in the LC. The London confession had a much more sacramental view of Baptism (although NOT a sacrament, per se).

Tom would almost certainly re-baptize someone coming from a church ascribing to the London confession.

All that being said, I DO think it is important to have distinctive. I would not be a part of any church (membership) that baptized infants, or had a sacramental view of the Lord's Supper, or did not believe in Perseverance of saints.

But I WOULD accept converts from said churches, without additional requirements, other than testimony. Why? Because the Presbyterians and Methodists and yes, the Churches of Christ, are our brothers and sisters. I think they are wrong on some points, but our Lord's grace is more than sufficient for it. I am quite sure WE are wrong on some things too, and are just to arrogant to recognize it.