Featured Who's to say that one is not a Baptist?

Sorry, I do not buy it. I have met Lee and nothing about him tells me he has the time or would even spend time on discussion boards. They does speaking engagements 200+ days out of the year.

 

I have that many speaking engagements and I still come here.

And what about a person, when you meet, them tells you they wouldn't respond on a discussion thread about them?

We have no reason to believe it was not Lee. He is a normal guy just like the rest of us. Being an author doesn't change that.

 

If in fact it was Mr. Strobel, and I have no reason to doubt it. I would be very uncomfortable with the thought of prohibiting his posting on on any of the Baptist-only discussion boards.

 

FYI, he confirmed it to me through Twitter...

 

So, what denomination is Lee Strobel? Does anyone know?

 

Just to stir the puddin' a bit....The question I have is this, what precisely is the difference between a "Non-denominationalist" (who would accept, teach and preach and believe all the distinctives of Baptists) and an actual "Baptist"? A name on the front of our sign folks...means essentially nothing. This from someone, who loves the distinction "Baptist" and the word itself...and would never want "Bible Baptist Church" (my church) to decide to change it's name to "Bible Community Church"...but quite frankly...as long as nothing Theologically changed, It would still be Baptist. How many Churches now were founded BY Baptists (especially Southern Baptists)...and even work with and donate to their conventions and yet have a name like one in my town, "Church of the Springs". Ask about 4/5ths of the congregants there what kind of church they go to...and they will call themselves "Non-denominationalists". They simply don't even KNOW that their Church is associated with Baptists. I take a sick form of pleasure sometimes at informing them of this, usually to their utter horror.

If the rule is that one must "self-identify" as "Baptist", I have NO problem with it....I like to preserve the distinction of that word....but truth be told, the Mod was somewhat inaccurate to say to him..."You are not a Baptist"....anyone who teaches the distinctives is a Baptist whether they are aware of it or not. In a weird sort of way...."Baptists" ARE "Non-denominationalists".

 

Whatever, he sounds as much or more Baptist as many others here, some who admittedly don't attend Baptist churches...but I've said my piece and I'm not going to argue the matter.

 

Would you kick Wayne Grudem out?

Would it just depend on whether he self-identified himself as a Baptist? He currently attends a Vineyard Church.

Would we kick Paul out?

He wouldn't even know what a Baptist was.

We had a unique opportunity to engage in dialogue first hand with the author of an acknowledged book on apologetics and we drew through the Pharisee's yellow flag. (Now theres a mixed metaphor for you).

The primary Baptist distinctive appears to be "argumentative and contentious".

 

I post on here. Why wouldn't Lee?

 

No, because Paul was a Baptist -- a Baptist missionary.

 

Agreed actually....but that doesn't mean he "called" himself one. The name isn't really the onus of it. The distinctives are.

 

You are correct.

 

I usually say, "A Christian by conversion and a Baptist by conviction." Of course conviction must be modified here and there.

In the end, Baptist is simply a label. But historically, Baptist were more known for what one author term "fragile freedoms."

 

Yes, of course, and I get the joke...but when he said:

I actually meant to say that I do truly believe that. He might have been being facetious. (I don't really know M.W's views on ecclesiology that well). I am not. I truly do ostensibly believe that Paul was a "Baptist". That is of course, not to say that Paul even knew what the word "Baptist" meant...but that Baptists are those people who follow New Testament Christianity to the letter (as much as possible) and that were Paul around today, he would, in fact, BE a Baptist. This of course only means that a "Baptist" is properly defined as those who hold to the Baptist "Distinctives"....regarding Strobel....if he does indeed do so, (and he claimed to) then whether he self-identifies as a "Baptist" or not, he is one. I haven't read the rules on the thread about that....but, unless self-identification as a "Baptist" is what is required to post then he wouldn't qualify, but if adherence to the "Distinctives" is what qualifies...then Strobel is a Baptist. He claimed to believe the distinctives, and even suggested that he was a "quasi-Baptist" (in his words). To then decree to him that "You are not a Baptist" is short-sighted IMO.

Given what I said above...the Moderator would have kicked-out the Apostle Paul (inasmuch as Paul had no idea what a "Baptist" was, and would not have called himself one). Paul would agree with what defines us, our "Distinctives", but he would be unaware of the fact that he is required to label himself by that particular terminology. The Apostle Paul was also presumably un-aware of the fact that some of our Baptist fore-bears were at one point often referred to as "Paulicans" also. I think the Mod would have kicked Paul out.
Mind you, this is NOT a dig at the inestimable wisdom of our Moderators...because if the rule is to "self-identify" then, that would be the right thing to do, but adherence to our distinctives is what truly defines us and nothing else. The "Rule" that our Mods should be required to enforce should probably read something to the effect that all posters on the "Baptists Only" section be those who adhere to the Distinctives.

 

This hasn't happened very often in our church, but here's how we handled it.

A young couple began attending our church, and eventually expressed a desire to join us. They previously attended a non-denominational church. So when they presented themselves as candidates for membership, we asked them to supply us with their previous church's doctrinal statement and by-laws. They did, and except for the fact that it did not carry the name Baptist, it was baptistic in nearly every area. With some minor exceptions, our own church could have adopted it. In other words, we considered it a true New Testament church.

So, we determined that they had been scripturally baptized in a church of like faith and order, and thus gladly welcomed them into our fellowship. If I remember correctly, we accepted them by statement rather than transfer of membership.

On the other hand, many years ago, we had a lady to sought membership who had been previously in a Free-Will Baptist Church. We required her to be baptized, because she did not come from a church of like faith and order (even though called Baptist).

Unfortunately, these days, some Baptist churches don't exercise much judgment regarding eligibility for membership. Sprinkled? No problem. Poured? No problem. You believe in apostasy? No problem.