Thread: How many PB Baptists are 'Baptist' because of a commitment to 'congregationalism'?

Many people think the baptist distinction is just 'believers baptism' but it isnt.

How many Baptists on the board are baptist because of the baptist understanding of the 'local church' and how it should be governed?

What is the scriptural basis for your conviction?

What are the strengths in practice of this type of government? What are the weaknesses?

I ask this question because it was primarily the church baptist understanding of church goverment which led me to become baptist.

Actually, the reason I am a Baptist has very little to do with congregationalism.

Don't be so quick to dismiss baptism as a reason for being a Baptist. It's not just credobaptism that causes me to wear the label of "Baptist." The Baptist view of the covenants, specifically the New Covenant, is what under girds baptism. Congregationalism doesn't just go along for the ride, but it's secondary to the Baptist covenantal view IMHO.

Originally Posted by Herald

Actually, the reason I am a Baptist has very little to do with congregationalism.

Don't be so quick to dismiss baptism as a reason for being a Baptist. It's not just credobaptism that causes me to wear the label of "Baptist." The Baptist view of the covenants, specifically the New Covenant, is what under girds baptism. Congregationalism doesn't just go along for the ride, but it's secondary to the Baptist covenantal view IMHO.

hmmm not sure I agree with that. My understanding is that baptist ecclesiolgy is at the heart of what it means to be baptist. The sad part being that many 'ministers' or 'elders' are taking advantage of the baptist churches in which they minister. They run their churches like a hierarchy when this goes against the grain of baptist ecclessiology.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Originally Posted by Herald

Actually, the reason I am a Baptist has very little to do with congregationalism.

Don't be so quick to dismiss baptism as a reason for being a Baptist. It's not just credobaptism that causes me to wear the label of "Baptist." The Baptist view of the covenants, specifically the New Covenant, is what under girds baptism. Congregationalism doesn't just go along for the ride, but it's secondary to the Baptist covenantal view IMHO.

hmmm not sure I agree with that. My understanding is that baptist ecclesiolgy is at the heart of what it means to be baptist. The sad part being that many 'ministers' or 'elders' are taking advantage of the baptist churches in which they minister. They run their churches like a hierarchy when this goes against the grain of baptist ecclessiology.

We are a congregational church with elder rule. In spiritual matters the elders do not need congregational approval, except in the matter of a change to our doctrinal statement or church covenant. In financial or church administration matters, a majority of an assembled quorum is necessary for approval.

The following principles is what I understand to be core baptist distinctives.

Baptist Beliefs and Practices
Baptist churches tend to be evangelical in doctrine and Reformed in worship. However, Baptist churches do not have a central governing authority, so a wide range of beliefs can be seen between one Baptist church and another. Some Baptist churches use the following acronym as a summary of the common distinctives of Baptists:

Biblical authority
Autonomy of the local church
Priesthood of the believer
Two ordinances (Believer's Baptism and Communion)
Individual soul liberty
Separation of Church and State
Two offices of the church (Pastor and Deacon)

John, there is no one authoritative source for Baptist distinctives. Compare a Reformed (or confessional) Baptist church to a mainstream Arminian Baptist church and you are likely to see a myriad of differences. Elders vs. deacons is one such difference.

Originally Posted by Herald

John, there is no one authoritative source for Baptist distinctives. Compare a Reformed (or confessional) Baptist church to a mainstream Arminian Baptist church and you are likely to see a myriad of differences. Elders vs. deacons is one such difference.

Thanks for your input, I'll be interested to see what the other baptists say.

Originally Posted by Herald

John, there is no one authoritative source for Baptist distinctives.

He is absolutely right, John. Each Baptist Church is totally autonomous, so they can do whatever they want. (sorry, Bill, couldn't resist)

I agree with Bill that ecclesiology is secondary. After all, there were Congregationalists in the Puritan camp, and probably most of them were Paedobaptist.

there is actually a denomination called CCCC which is conservative congregational Reformed and paedobaptist, I think there is a pastor of that denomination on the PB

Originally Posted by Joshua

Originally Posted by Herald

John, there is no one authoritative source for Baptist distinctives.

He is absolutely right, John. Each Baptist Church is totally autonomous, so they can do whatever they want. (sorry, Bill, couldn't resist)

Josh, you already got me an Italian Ice this afternoon. Keep it up and I'll have surf n' turf tomorrow!

Don't be so quick to dismiss baptism as a reason for being a Baptist. It's not just credobaptism that causes me to wear the label of "Baptist." The Baptist view of the covenants, specifically the New Covenant, is what under girds baptism. Congregationalism doesn't just go along for the ride, but it's secondary to the Baptist covenantal view IMHO.

I agree with Bill

Is it not strange men should say, all children of believers are in covenant, and that there is no falling from a state of grace; but that the New Covenant is so well ordered in all things, and sure, that it will secure all that are indeed in it, unto eternal life; and yet many of these children, who they say, are in this covenant, perish in their sins, dying unregenerate? - From Benjamin Keach, Gold Refin\’d, or, Baptism in its Primitive Purity (London: 1689), 169.

Jon, you're actually the first person I've ever heard of who chose to be baptist based on anything but the mode and meaning of baptism...

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Jon, you're actually the first person I've ever heard of who chose to be baptist based on anything but the mode and meaning of baptism...

I concur. I am aware of practices of other baptist groups, but those are completely irrelevant to me being a baptist. My church is not congregationalist and has both elders and deacons, despite what other baptists may do.

Originally Posted by victorbravo

I agree with Bill that ecclesiology is secondary. After all, there were Congregationalists in the Puritan camp, and probably most of them were Paedobaptist.

The Savoy Declaration is a paedobaptist-Congregationalist confession, isn't it?

For Baptist History, Dr. Renihan gave us five different sources with lists on Baptist distinctives -- the overlap isn't that extensive (nor are they necessarily limited to Baptists, as in McGoldrick's case) and church government isn't high on the list:

a. David West (8)
Bible only rule of faith and practice
Qualifications for membership: regeneration and immersion
Independence of local church
Priesthood of believers
Soul liberty
Two ordinances: baptism and closed communion
Separation of church and state
Ecclesiastical exclusivism

b. William Cathcart -- published "Baptist Encyclopedia" 1881
Hold doctrines of honoured Presbyterian church, differing only on baptism and church government. Small, Arminian baptist presence, but he doesn't acknowledge them at all.

c. Robert Cook (6) - "Story of the Baptists"
regenerate church membership that is baptised
separation of church and state
Bible only rule of faith and practice
immersion only proper mode of baptism
closed communion
those who have argued that civil and religious liberty are inalienable rights of men

d. Raymond Brown (4) -- late-20th C "New Dictionary of Theology"
local church autonomy
gathered church
priesthood of believers
believer's baptism

e. James McGoldrick (9)
final authority of Scripture
Trinity
deity and humanity of Christ
sin and sinfulness of Man
salvation by grace
regenerate church
two ordinances: CB preceding membership and communion
separation of church and state
second coming

ETA: Point being that pretty much the only thing Baptists agree is a distinctive is baptism.

Originally Posted by Jon 316

My understanding is that baptist ecclesiolgy is at the heart of what it means to be baptist. The sad part being that many 'ministers' or 'elders' are taking advantage of the baptist churches in which they minister. They run their churches like a hierarchy when this goes against the grain of baptist ecclessiology.

The absolute sine qua non of Baptist belief and practice is believer's baptism. Even when liberal Baptists will give up things like the inerrancy of Scripture, they'll still hold onto believer's baptism.

Of course, there are other common "Baptist distinctives," but the heart and soul is believer's baptism.

Most Baptists are congregationalists - and indeed most in the last 150 or so years have been in favor of a completely democratic makeup of the local church - but there is a whole gamut of positions on church government within Baptist thought. Everything from radical autonomy to soft-core Presbyterianism. But no Baptist will deny believer's baptism.

Originally Posted by Jen

The Savoy Declaration is a paedobaptist-Congregationalist confession, isn't it?

Quite right. And John Owen, of course, had a pretty big hand in that one.

Baptist pastor Mark Dever has an essay defending congregationalism.

Baptists and Elders - 9Marks

Church structure (ecclesiology) is definitely a secondary issue. As a matter of fact there is a small, but growing, movement among some Baptists that is looking at a more Presbyterian form of church structure.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

Church structure (ecclesiology) is definitely a secondary issue. As a matter of fact there is a small, but growing, movement among some Baptists that is looking at a more Presbyterian form of church structure.

Lawrence, I draw the line at ecclesiastical accountability outside of the local church. I have no problems with associations since they are voluntary and do not possess authority over the local church. But if a Baptist church were to have a form of presbytery, that would be problematic for me.

About the only exception I would consider (which is really not an exception) would be a church plant that was more of a missions work at first.

[John, If this is too off topic, or takes more than a post to answer, let me know and I'll start a new thread]

Bill, this question is inspired by your last post: Are there any credo-baptist church groups which do have a more presby-style government? In other words, credo churches united by more than voluntary association.

There have been, of course, many congregational paedobaptists; but I can't say I've ever heard of "presbyterian" (or some other form of government) credobaptists.

Edit
I just realized, I have to qualify this slightly. There are credo Methodists out there; but I don't know if these particular Methodists are advocates of typical Methodist government or not.

Originally Posted by Prufrock

[John, If this is too off topic, or takes more than a post to answer, let me know and I'll start a new thread]

Bill, this question is inspired by your last post: Are there any credo-baptist church groups which do have a more presby-style government? In other words, credo churches united by more than voluntary association.

There have been, of course, many congregational paedobaptists; but I can't say I've ever heard of "presbyterian" (or some other form of government) credobaptists.

Paul, I suppose there is within the sphere of broad evangelicalism. A more appropriate question would be, "Are there any BAPTIST churches which do have a more presby-style government?" Not every credo church is a Baptist church. As to whether there are a group of Baptist churches who have a presby-style government, I have to plead ignorance on that.

This is interesting for me.

I attended a Baptist Theological College as a pentecostal believer atending an independent pentecostal charismatic church.

It was reading up on baptist ecclessiology which convinced me that 'baptist' was a biblical model, certainly more biblical than the hierarchical pentecostal churches. In the pentecostal churches it is very much the minister's church, he is like a manager, and his elders are like subservient supervisors who serve 'under him' and the congregation are subject to the vision, ideas, opinions and programme of the pastor.

My understanding of what it means to be baptist is that 1)their understanding of the gospel, 2) their understanding of baptism 3) their understanding of 'believers church' are inextricably linked together. In this sense, congregationalism for baptists is not a secondary issue. The theological presuppositions which underpin this self understanding is 1) the priesthood of all believers 2) Jesus as sole head of the church 3) The competence of each individual/church to discern the mind of Christ and govern its own affairs.

If a Baptist church develops a 'presbyterian' form of government they are no longer baptist in the truest sense of the word. I think it is true that many today who would call themselves 'baptist' lack an understanding of what it actually means to be baptist.

While some who are 'reformed baptists' may have joined themselves to a reformed baptist on the basis that 1) they are commited to reformed theology and 2) They believe in Believers baptism. The truth is- baptist identity involves so much more, as has been discussed.

We have this 'problem' in Scotland too, there is a saying 'scratch a scottish baptist and you will discover a scottish presbyterian underneath.

I think it is true that many today who would call themselves 'baptist' lack an understanding of what it actually means to be baptist.

John, I don't know what you mean by "many."

Does "many" mean most mainline "Arminian-leaning" Baptists?

Does "many" mean individuals, in all types of Baptist churches, that are ignorant of what Baptist means? If so, isn't that an arbitrary comment?

Does "many" mean those that you know personally?

There certainly are Baptists who don't have a solid grasp on what Baptists believe, just as there are Presbyterians who don't have a solid grasp on what Presbyterians believe. The purpose of this board is to discuss Reformed and Confessional theology and practices. How about this question? "What should Baptist's believe about ecclesiology?" That would open up a whole range of topics: baptism, congregationalism, deacons, elders, covenantalism etc.

Originally Posted by Herald

I think it is true that many today who would call themselves 'baptist' lack an understanding of what it actually means to be baptist.

John, I don't know what you mean by "many."

Does "many" mean most mainline "Arminian-leaning" Baptists?

Does "many" mean individuals, in all types of Baptist churches, that are ignorant of what Baptist means? If so, isn't that an arbitrary comment?

Does "many" mean those that you know personally?

There certainly are Baptists who don't have a solid grasp on what Baptists believe, just as there are Presbyterians who don't have a solid grasp on what Presbyterians believe. The purpose of this board is to discuss Reformed and Confessional theology and practices. How about this question? "What should Baptist's believe about ecclesiology?" That would open up a whole range of topics: baptism, congregationalism, deacons, elders, covenantalism etc.

[ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Church-State-Positive-Baptist/dp/1842273531]Free Church, Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision: Amazon.co.uk: Nigel G. Wright: Your Store[/ame]

Read for yourself

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Originally Posted by Herald

I think it is true that many today who would call themselves 'baptist' lack an understanding of what it actually means to be baptist.

John, I don't know what you mean by "many."

Does "many" mean most mainline "Arminian-leaning" Baptists?

Does "many" mean individuals, in all types of Baptist churches, that are ignorant of what Baptist means? If so, isn't that an arbitrary comment?

Does "many" mean those that you know personally?

There certainly are Baptists who don't have a solid grasp on what Baptists believe, just as there are Presbyterians who don't have a solid grasp on what Presbyterians believe. The purpose of this board is to discuss Reformed and Confessional theology and practices. How about this question? "What should Baptist's believe about ecclesiology?" That would open up a whole range of topics: baptism, congregationalism, deacons, elders, covenantalism etc.

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Church-State-Positive-Baptist/dp/1842273531"]Free Church, Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision: Amazon.co.uk: Nigel G. Wright: Your Store[/ame]

Read for yourself

No, John. You start a thread asking questions about Baptist ecclesiology, and go so far as to elevate ecclesiology to the same level as baptism. I feel confident that I've probably read a few more books than you on the topic, but that's not germane to the conversation.

Instead of just asking questions, making drive-by statements or recommending books; why don't you participate in the discussion you started?

Originally Posted by Herald

Originally Posted by Jon 316

Originally Posted by Herald

John, I don't know what you mean by "many."

Does "many" mean most mainline "Arminian-leaning" Baptists?

Does "many" mean individuals, in all types of Baptist churches, that are ignorant of what Baptist means? If so, isn't that an arbitrary comment?

Does "many" mean those that you know personally?

There certainly are Baptists who don't have a solid grasp on what Baptists believe, just as there are Presbyterians who don't have a solid grasp on what Presbyterians believe. The purpose of this board is to discuss Reformed and Confessional theology and practices. How about this question? "What should Baptist's believe about ecclesiology?" That would open up a whole range of topics: baptism, congregationalism, deacons, elders, covenantalism etc.

[ame="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Free-Church-State-Positive-Baptist/dp/1842273531"]Free Church, Free State: The Positive Baptist Vision: Amazon.co.uk: Nigel G. Wright: Your Store[/ame]

Read for yourself

No, John. You start a thread asking questions about Baptist ecclesiology, and go so far as to elevate ecclesiology to the same level as baptism. I feel confident that I've probably read a few more books than you on the topic, but that's not germane to the conversation.

Instead of just asking questions, making drive-by statements or recommending books; why don't you participate in the discussion you started?

1stly, my question, in this thread, is addressed to those who are baptist primarily due to their conviction regarding the congregational nature of baptist church government. You have already said this does not apply to you.

Most of my reading on this subject was done at the Scottish Baptist College in a module called Baptist Identity. (The previously mentioned book being a core text.)

However I have just scanned the internet to see what is out there which deals with these issues. You are the first baptist leader I have met who does not see the congregational nature of baptist church government as being a central aspect to baptist identity.


You asked me for 'evidence' regarding my statement about baptists not understanding the nature of of Baptist Ecclessiology. Most of my 'evidence' was through the contemprary reading and teaching at college. However a quick scan of the internet has revealed, that other baptists, from other 'streams' (i.e not teh scottish context) have also identified this problem.

A Recovery of Baptist Ecclesiology

Chapter 3: Church Characteristics as seen in the First Church at Jerusalem


So Bill, would you not see the following statement relating to the church meeting as being a central component of what it means to be Baptist?

Church members are called to prayerfully discern God's will for their shared life. Final authority does not rest with the ministers, deacons or any other local, national or international body, but with the members meeting together under God's guidance.