Ehtical, moral, and spiritual dilemma

I know personally several churches that have removed the word "Baptist" from their names, and yet these churches are still recognizable as (and are affiliated with) Southern Baptist associations/churches/state and national conventions. Therefore, I must conclude that the NAME is not what matters, but the belief system of the members and the congregation.

Logically, this should also apply to individuals. If a person believes Baptist theology, he/she should not be considered as "non-Baptist" simply because of what the name of his/her church is.

In fact, a local pastor in my town graduated from a SBC seminary, but pastors the local Community Church. This does not make him less of a Baptist than am I. His church employment/call by God was to this local congregation, regardless of name or affiliation with a Baptist organization.

Bill:godisgood:

 

If a church doesn't want to be called baptist, and a person is a member of that church,and is in agreement, then they also do not want to be called baptist, then they have rejected being a baptist. This is a baptist board, for those not affraid to be baptists.

 

That's not necessarily true. My church doesn't have "Christian" in the name, but does that make it a non-Christian church?

 

The discussion doesn't appear to be about the word christian, but rather the word baptist.
In order for this board to consider a person baptist, they must be a member of a baptist church.
Or so it used to be, now a days anyone can be called a baptist, it no longer means much at all.

 

I personally don't care what the rules of the board are on this matter. I disagree with them on this point, but I recognize the right to enforce them.

That being said, the issue is really "What makes a church Baptist?"

My view is that a church is Baptist because of its doctrine, not its name.

One can have "Baptist" in the name while believing all kinds of heresies. One can also have a "Community Church" label while believing everything a strongly biblical "FBC" would believe.

 

If a new member joins the Baptist Board and does not have the name Baptist as a denomination OR in the church name, then they are not considered Baptist by this board and are not allowed to post in Baptist Only Forums.

If said member were to change his/her profile to say Baptist, after being informed about this rule that they should have read when they joined, it would not be accepted because if said posters were, in truth, Baptist that would have been put in the profile in the first place...

Too many people are changing their profiles and putting Baptist in there just so they can post in the Baptist Only Forums and it's not gonna fly anymore...

 

I don't know the situation in America, but here in the UK, there are several baptist churches that do not have the word "baptist" in the church name. (Some are hundreds of years old, and have never had the word in their church name). For instance, I have in front of me my copy of "Grace Baptist Directory". The inside cover has these words: "This publication is a list of Baptist churches in which entries are solely at the request of church officers who confirm that their church adheres to the Baptist Confession of 1689 or the Affirmation of 1966 or both." Although most of the churches listed do have the word Baptist in the church name, several do not. Some of the latter are well known to me, and I know that the absence of the word is by no means caused by any fear, nor does it reflect non-baptist beliefs.


If a baptist belonging to a baptist church without the word "baptist" in the church name is really not allowed to post in the "Baptist Only" forums, then surely posting rule 1 needs to be rewritten. At present, it just says:

Be aware of forum Categories. We offer a wide range of forums. Most are for BAPTISTS only, to post opinions, views, beliefs and ideas. We also have a few forums for BAPTISTS and all other CHRISTIANS, with pertinent topics that relate to everyone.
​

"Most are for BAPTISTS only." Fine. But there is no mention there of church names, no definition of "baptist".
I must stress that I am not trying to be contentious in any way here. I'm just saying that if a poster must belong to a baptist church that actually includes the word "baptist" in the church name in order to post to "baptist only" forums, this needs to be made clear in the posting rules.

 

That is why we have a place for the name of your church AND your denomination when you join. One or the other has to have the name BAPTIST in it.

That's why this is called the BAPTIST Board.

If I attended a Baptist church without the name 'Baptist' in it, I would still list myself as a Baptist in the proper field.

Not to do so would mean that I wasn't one.

I did not make the rules, but one needs to be honest and tell us their 'brand' of Christianity, for lack of a better word, or everyone would be posting in the Baptist Only Forums.

The rules are set by the owner and if one wants them changed, that is who they need to see about it.

 

The word Baptist covers a lot of territory. What does it mean to be Baptist?

 

I agree with you, now that I understand what you meant. :laugh: (Before, I thought you were saying that if a baptist was a member of a church that did not have the word "baptist" in its title, he or she would not be allowed to post on the "Baptist Only" forums.)

 

It means to beleive in the destinctive baptist doctrines, which very few baptists now days beleive. Many persons and churchs are baptist in name only.

 

Same here. Many Baptist churches are removing the Baptist label -- though they are still Baptist in doctrine & affiliation. I see that to a lesser degree with other denominations -- though I don't know why.

 

Evidently it means one attends a church with the name Baptist, even though that may not mean anything... but what does it mean? [circular]...

Anyway, according to the rules are they are related here, a person can attend a church which has changed its name from Baptist to something else, but it still doctrinally supports belief in the Bible, soul liberty, believer's baptism by immersion, supports missions at home and internationally, et al, but that person could not post in the Baptist Only forums.

On the other hand, a person could attend a church which does use the name Baptist, but it does not affirm belief in the Bible, it does "weddings" for homosexuals, it teaches all religions lead to the same place, et al, and that person could post on the Baptist Only forums.

Is this analysis correct?

 

No, it is not.

The church does not have to have 'Baptist' in the name as long as one states he is a Baptist.

If he does not state that he is a Baptist...THEN the name of the church has to have 'Baptist' in it.

One or the other...not both.

We count on members being honest about what they are and where they attend church, but sadly, many are not.

 

What matters is that a poster is a Baptist.

 

Is this analysis correct?

That's only a slight variation from my previous 'analysis.' The second person in my example could still post in the B.O. forums if he named his church, which does use the name Bapist.

But what do you mean "One of the other...not both"? I checked, and a lot of posters say both that they are Baptist and their church has Baptist in its name.

 

My dear, I assure, the most important thing in my busy life is NOT updating my computer knowledge.

When I was attending the company that I originally listed in my resume, it was Fortran IV in language. IN FACT, the CEO of the board of the directors of the local branch also owned the Company, which turns out most of the Geeks who hack into most of the computers in our area.

As I explained to you in a recent email, since the time I originally became a hacker, I had subsequently left that company, and became part of the Commodore 64 techs. I'm a busy person. Updating resumes, which I consdier to be more for introductory information for other prospective companies, I ASSURE you was NOT a high priority in my life! Even after I emailed you and explained that I am a fellow Commodore 64 tech/hacker your reaction was to coldly ignore me. In each of your memos you have impled that I lied about my Commodore 64 affiliation. Lying about a computer affiliation, and writing a MEMO about it??? You have got to be kidding me! Of all the ridiculous things!

The truth is you did not want me freely using the computers, regardless of whether I knew your language of Fortran IV or Commodore 64. That is why you refused to respond to me. The real reason you banished me from my department had NOTHING to do with my qualifications. It had everything to do with the fact I had brought to light the inappropriate actions of you, my superior. And this is my boss's way to try to silence me. THAT is why you did not respond to me when I told you that I was in fact, a fellow Fortran IV/Commodore 64 hacker. It would have defeated the real reason for my being fired.

Well, as of Sunday my Commodore Company has removed the "Commodore" name from their title. According to this poll and the answers provided, I am still a Commodore 64 hacker however. They haven't changed their constitution in any way. They are still Commodore. They just don't have the name "Commodore" on any of their products. (Maybe they have gone to "No Name) :laugh:

And BTW, If I worked for a company that did not have the label Commodore, I would not list Commodore in my job description. That would be a lie.

It is so sad that some people are so obsessed with a Commodore over a computer.