When is Baptist no longer Baptist?

The churches of Christ have several bulletin boards and have open doctrinal discussions among ministers and whoever else cares to jump in.

Les

 

This might come as a surprise to some English Baptists.

Les

 

The problem with the name "Baptist" is that anyone can call their church a "Baptist" church with no legal ramifications. So you can only define it in very vague and general terms, and even those may not be correct depending on what Baptist you're talking to. There is no "right" answer, in other words.

You see, The "Jehovah's Witnesses", "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", and some other religious organizations have trademarked names. They can legally sue your tail off if you try to use their name. So you walk into one of those churches... you know what you get. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will not issue trademarks for "Baptist" because it sees the name as too generic.

Certainly most people in a particular Baptist church or denomination or convention would tend to agree or formally agree on what they believe as "Baptists". But other Baptist churches may have slightly different definitions of what a "Baptist" is.

That is one of the reasons I don't identify myself as "Baptist" most of the time. It doesn't mean anything, technically. All it does is identify you with a stereotype... and there is no way to even know what exactly that stereotype involves because everyone has different experiences concerning what "Baptist" means to them. I happen to go to a Baptist church, but that doesn't mean much in and of itself.

So there you have it. There is no legal answer to "when is Baptist no longer Baptist." People can (and I'm sure will) argue until Christ returns about what it means to be a Baptist. Just know that. People will always argue about it, and it is a pointless argument to be involved in. I mean, if you want to discuss theology, by all means do that. But the Bible isn't going to say what is a Baptist and what isn't... so what is the point of arguing about that. Argue about something the Bible does talk about if you want to argue theology, you know? Does that make sense?

So go answer your question, finally.... Generally speaking, Baptists tend to agree that baptism is to be by immersion and should take place after a decision by the baptisee to follow Christ (if baptisee is a word... ;-)). I bet if you looked around you could find a Baptist church that didn't even agree with that though.

 

Quote:

Enlighten me. Why so?

 

As an English Baptist, I wonder why English Baptists were singled out as being more likely to believe in baptismal regeneration. I must say I have yet to come across an English Baptist (or a Welsh Baptist, or an Indian Baptist, or Irish Baptist, or indeed any Baptist) who believes such a thing. Perhaps you could tell us (Les) why you think that some English Baptists (as opposed to Baptists in any other country) would be surprised to hear that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is wrong.

Also, I am unsure what Tom's second statement means. If it means "If you go through a ceremony beliving that it will make you a Christian automatically," then I agree. But if it means, "Even if you are baptized as a believer, by immersion, the validity of that baptism depends on the beliefs of the person "performing" the baptism," (I know "performing" is probably not the best word, but I trust you know what I mean by it) then I am not so sure.

 

Surely it does not come down to whether one country's laws permit the trade marking of the name "Baptist". Rather, it is the fact that Baptist church order has the local church as the "unit". Each local church may choose to join an association of similar local churches, or it may not, but no one local church (or group of churches) has any authority over another. Nor are there any units "above" the local church level - no diocese, no deanery, no province, no "circuit". This is unlike most other denominations. The Anglicans (Episcopal) have their archdeacons, bishops, archbishops, diocese, etc. The Methodists have their "circuits", connexions, districts, and Conference. Whether or not words like "Anglican" and "Methodist" can be trademarked in the US, such denominations have a hierarchical structure that Baptist churches do not have.

 

You are correct that each local church is independent and can join associations, etc. The only point I'm making is that any church, no matter what they believe, can call itself Baptist. There is no authority to say they are any more a "Baptist" then you are or that I am (whether it is a U.S. issued trademark or a passage from the Bible... there is just no authoritative definition of what a 'Baptist Christian' is). So the question of what exactly it means to be Baptist can only be answered very generally, and even then there could be disagreements that no one has authority to solve.

 

I agree with you. I obviously put too much importance on your earlier reference to US trademarks. Sorry!

 

That is the impression I received from reading G.R. Beasley-Murray's and Stanley Fowler's books on baptism.

Les

 

I have not read those particular books. Do the authors actually claim that a sinner is regenerated by baptism? I am certain the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not one which is generally held by British baptists. It is certainly not believed by this one or his church

 

Do the authors actually claim that a sinner is regenerated by baptism?

Not separate and apart from faith, as it is supposed to work in infant baptism, and not in the sense that baptism has any magic power in and of itself.

What they seem to be arguing is that the passages in the NT that refer to baptism should be taken at face value rather than being interpreted to mean that baptism "only" symbolizes what has already taken place

They make a good case for not separating baptism and conversion as is normally done.

Les

 

David, thank you. To clarify, my point is that proper baptism requires a proper administrator. That is, someone authorized by a New Testament Church. Otherwise, we might as well call the nearest Mormon elder or Catholic priest to do the job. Or your next-door neighbor.

In our part of Kentucky, we are seeing much dissension because some Baptist churches are accepting for membership those who have sprinkled, and those who have been immersed by churches which are not of like faith and order.

Since I hold that the truth about baptism is one of the distinguishing marks of Baptists, you can see why I believe that a baptism by someone who does not hold to that truth makes a dunking but not a baptism.

In this part of the USA and Kentucky, I know of no Baptists who hold to baptismal regeneration.

 

One of the very few things there seems to be no disagreement about amongst Baptists is baptism. Immersion as sign of salvation, with no variance. As Brother Tom said in an earlier post, there are some churches that try to slip in sprinkling.

We are reviewing our by-laws to solve this problem. Talking to many here and there, I find virtually no variance on baptism. Other issues, such as member reception, communion, church rolls, there is much disagreement.

I suppose one could conclude that baptism is the first distinctive of being a bapitst, and two, three, and four are voted on by the local church.

I have a hard time calling salvation by faith in Jesus only, innerency of the Bible, soverignty of God, spreading the Gospel being called Baptist distinctives. These are chararcteristics of any NT church.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Lamb
As an English Baptist, I wonder why English Baptists were singled out as being more likely to believe in baptismal regeneration. I must say I have yet to come across an English Baptist (or a Welsh Baptist, or an Indian Baptist, or Irish Baptist, or indeed any Baptist) who believes such a thing. Perhaps you could tell us (Les) why you think that some English Baptists (as opposed to Baptists in any other country) would be surprised to hear that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is wrong.

I had the privilege of meeting Dr. Beasley-Murray several years ago and spent a while in conversation. I also bought his book on baptism. It is quite scholarly in writing style, so my eyes glazed over at times. My best recollection is that GB-M did not hold to baptismal regeneration. But he did hold to a view that was new to me: that is, that a new convert received the baptism of the Holy Spirit at the moment of his water baptism.

I can see where such a view might lead one to believe he held to baptismal regeneration, but I don't think was the view he espoused in the remainder of the book. I could be wrong, of course. I did not see that he was making water baptism the cause of the spirit baptism, but that they occurred simoultaneously.

Some year, I'll go back and re-read GB-M's book.

 

It is definitely worth a 2nd reading. I think I've waded through it three times now. I think you stated it better than I did, about the water and Spirit baptism being simultaneous, rather than the water baptism causing anything. I believe he also wrote that in NT times salvation was considered to be simultaneous with water baptism in "normative" cases, with the thief, Cornelius, etc. being the exception rather than the rule.

I think he makes a very good case.

Les

 

Where is this methodoligy of Dr. Beasley-Murray backed up by scripture? I hear discussions but not scripture. James 1:19 thru 27 speaks that we are to be doers of the word. So, are not we to be practicing the word from scripture rather then someones opinon? Where in scripture does it say that the Holy Spirit is recieved at the same time of being Baptised. Sounds like a boat was missed. My, what a shame that Mr. Marshall came up the Chesapeake Bay and get off the ship at Messongo Creek and start preacing the word of God on a stump, while thereby the locals put him in prison on the Eastern Shore of Virginia as the first Baptist preacher from Sandy Point in the Carolinas. When are a Baptist not a baptist?

 

In all fairness, I should say that Beasley-Murray's name originally came up on this thread in answer to my question about why English baptists, in particular, should be more likely than others to believe in baptismal regeneration. Les (lbaker) replied that he got that impression from reading G.R. Beasley-Murray's and Stanley Fowler's books on baptism. So he wasn't mentioned with a view to discussing whether his theology was right or wrong, or whether his methodology was scriptural.

 

THIS is VAGUE!?! :laugh:

NPet -- nothing you SAY is vague!

That said, the first Baptists -- the "Originals" -- were founded by Thomas Helwys in about 1611 AD. He and John Smyth had led a group of Separatists from persecution in England to Holland, where their interaction with Anabaptists and Arminians formed a unique theological and ecclesiological perspective that developed into the first "Baptist" Church.

The first "Baptist" Church was founded by Helwys in Spitalfields, England. It centered around the foundational truths of the Reformation, emphasized religious freedom and "separation of Church and State," refuted "infant Baptism" rather emphasizing Believers Baptism, and was Arminian in its soteriology.

No wonder everyone in England hated them at the time....

SO -- if we go by the ORIGINAL Baptist form, well.... I'll leave it there. I don't want NPet to have a stroke or something....

:-D

JDale

 

I'm not so sure that Beasley-Murray got this one right. But this is the kind of stuff that theologians discuss, while the rest of us go about the Father's business.

See, Les, we're already differing on the matter of salvation. If you hold that the baptism of the HS is simultaneous with salvation, and also simultaneous with water baptism, then you have to connect salvation with baptism. I can't do that. Historically, Baptists haven't done that. Baptists have connected salvation with the baptism of the HS, but prior to water baptissm.

GB-M's position creates all sorts of problems for traditional Baptists if you take his view to its logical conclusion.