What is a Baptist

A BWM missionary friend named his church "Bible" because the Japanese don't know the word Baptist. When objected to he pointed to the autonomy of the local church. His Baptist church voted to make that the church name, thus literally fulfilling the autonomy of the local church in a distinctively Baptist way.:smilewinkgrin:

 

If only Baptist churches that have reformed theology (which seems to be the way you worded it) are Baptist churches, then, yes, you have wiped out a good portion of Baptist history.

That is not what separation of church and state mean. John Bunyan spent years in jail because he believed that there was a clear separation of church and state. Officially, there still isn't a separation between church and state in England. The "Church of England" is the "State Church," a Church which persecuted and murdered many believers as did the RCC. The state has no business in running the affairs of the church. In Russia only "state-approved" church are allowed the freedom to operate. All others meet secretly, "underground," as it were. So it is in many countries where Christians are persecuted and Christianity is outlawed. When the state mandates that you can no longer preach against homosexuality, they have overstepped their bounds. They have no business in the pulpit of the church. That is separation of church and state--something that Baptists have shed their blood for. Look up Baptist history of Massachusetts.

Separation ecclesiastically and morally.
a. Separation ecclesiastically. We separate from all churches that don't preach the gospel (liberal, modernist), all churches that are involved in cults, all churches that are involved in the Charismatic movement, the ecumenical movement, etc. (In general it means we have fellowship with those churches of like faith and order such as we do).
b. Separation morally. To use an example from history, Montanus separated from the churches because they had become corrupt. He emphasized purity: purity in the church, and purity in personal and holy living. This has an emphasis on sanctification; holy living.

I would consider them Baptist, but I believe they are wrong. Autonomy of the local church is a Biblical principle. You won't find denominationalism, or any of it cousins in the Bible. Paul started churches, not conventions.

The distinctives as a whole set us apart. Sola scriptura is very important to the Baptists. It is our final authority, our guide book for everything that we believe. That in itself is our most important distinctive. "Thus saith the Lord," not Oral Tradition, or the Book of Mormon, or any other authority.
Likewise the Priesthood of the believer. We each are priests before God--a concept so foreign to other religions, and so untaught in many of our own churches.

It would be good if throughout history we found those believing all points that I have posted, but we won't. But we will find those believing a general consensus on most of those points throughout history.

 

Our church is Victory Baptist Church in English, 勝利バプテスト教会,pr. Shori Baputesuto Kyokai. Japanese makes "Baptist" a loan word, pronouncing it the Japanese way, Baputesuto. When we need "immersion" to be a technical term we use 浸礼, shinrei, "washing ceremony."

 

Isn't that what it is in our English language also?

 

Um, well, a few centuries ago. The Japanese loan word only goes back to 1870 or so.

Another loan word in Japanese is tesuto ("test"). One day I invited a little boy to our Baputesuto church and he said, "What kind of tesuto is a bapu?" :laugh:

 

You don't consider 'baptize' to be essentially a Greek word that's never actually been translated into English? I guess that's what you mean by a 'loan' word.

baptizo
King James Word Usage - Total: 80
baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + (2258)&version=kjv 1

I look at the above and see a non-translated word at least 76 times.

 

Not to mention; sweet tea, fried chicken, and nanner puddin.

 

Good point John.



HankD

 

What? You mean it's human nature to be disageeable?



Not to be disagreeable, but I think "pot luck dinners" are universal as well.

HankD

 

Separation usually wasn't mentioned because it didn't have to be mentioned. On a personal level, a person that got saved gave up his drinking. That was a given. Nowadays, it is a societal norm to be a "social drinker." That never used to be the case. That is only an example. It seems that separation from the world must be spelled out for some.

Likewise, ecclesiastical separation did not have to be spelled out, for our history is a history written in blood. We had fellowship with believers of like faith and order that were being persecuted and martyred under the same cause. Now with these two great movements: the Charismatic and the ecumenical, there must be separation. We cannot join hands with those churches involved in error. Nowadays, since the time of Ockenga, the lines have been blurred. Before that time they were more clear cut.

 

Huh?

 

I think maybe you are streching it a bit here. I've been a baptist for 52 years and I'm still against Calvinism. Will never be a Calvinist simply because I believe it's doctrine to be completely wrong. To assume you cannot be a baptist unless you accept Calvinism is silly. There are many like me, members of Southern Baptist Churches. Who are not Calvinist
MB

 

Describing some as "baptistic" in this era is akin to calling someone a political independent without further qualification.

Calvin did attract a lot of theological and political refugees in his grand Genevan experiment. If they stayed for any length of time, and embraced anything but his version of theology, it is unique and rare.

 

Somewhere along the way there was a huge agreement that occurred between the Particular Baptists and the Reformed Church as is clearly demonstrated by their confessions that were published during the 17th century.