Baptist Distinctives

[Peairtach]

What are the Baptist distinctives, apart from believer's baptism by immersion?

Do baptists believe in only the offices of pastor and deacon? What about elders?

Is there any logical connection between the baptist view of baptism and their strong commitment to independency in church government, or is that just a historical "accident"?

 

[JML]

Do baptists believe in only the offices of pastor and deacon? What about elders?

Depends on the type of Baptist. There are many different Baptist groups.

 

[JML]

What are the Baptist distinctives, apart from believer's baptism by immersion?

Regenerate church membership would be another. Like I mentioned though, there are many different things that vary based on the group of Baptists.

 

[rbcbob]

Regenerate church membership and autonomy of the local church are hallmarks of Baptist ecclesiology.

 

[Pergamum]

What are the Baptist distinctives, apart from believer's baptism by immersion?

Do baptists believe in only the offices of pastor and deacon? What about elders?

Is there any logical connection between the baptist view of baptism and their strong commitment to independency in church government, or is that just a historical "accident"?

I have also wondered that as well. There are some presbyterians, however, that believe in independancy.

Many baptists will say that as the Church became more and more a political power after Constantine that infant baptism became the solid norm. To be born into some regions was to be born as a citizen of not only that province but that church as well. Thus, to refuse baptism or to withold baptism from a citizen was not merely a mark of different convictions about baptism, but was liek becoming a traitor to your regional government as well.

See the book, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren by Leonard Verduin

In The Reformers and their Stepchildren, the author Leonard Verduin focuses on the relationship between the Magisterial Reformer’s and the Radical Reformers (what the author calls ‘the Stepchildren’). Verduin’s controversial thesis is that when the ‘second front’ of the Radical Reformers started, the Magisterial Reformers (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin) made a theological (and political) shift contrary to the direction of progress which began in the early days of the Reformation. Verduin believed that the Magisterial Reformers heated reaction towards the Radical Reformers was thoroughly unbiblical in two important ways: (1) the Magisterial Reformers reverted back to Constantine’s Sacrementalism which blurred the identity (or at minimum, the role) of the Church and the State and (2) an ecclesiology which lacks the Biblical prerequisite of voluntary membership on the basis of faith in Christ. These two errors spawned other errors mentioned in the book such as the use of political coercion against the Stepchildren and the persecutions expressed against those who believed in believer’s baptism.

Verduin also adds a powerful voice to those contending that uniting civil and ecclesiastical power in a single entity always results in blood and horror.

VERDUIN


Leonard Verduin | The Reformers and Their Stepchildren

 

[KMK]

Are you talking about the difference between confessional Presbyterians and Baptists?

I agree with Bob that these two stand out the most. However, I think it should be called 'professors only church membership' or something like that.

Regenerate church membership and autonomy of the local church are hallmarks of Baptist ecclesiology.

 

[Goodcheer68]

 

[Pilgrim]

What are the Baptist distinctives, apart from believer's baptism by immersion?

Do baptists believe in only the offices of pastor and deacon? What about elders?

Is there any logical connection between the baptist view of baptism and their strong commitment to independency in church government, or is that just a historical "accident"?

Here are a few:

1. Regenerate church membership, at least as an ideal. Only those who are able to give a credible testimony should be reckoned members of the church. This of course is closely related to your first question.

2. Separation of church and state. This was obvious in the early days but probably tends to be glossed over more now as most paedobaptist groups (at least in America) have abandoned the Establishment Principle, theocracy, etc.

3. Some kind of congregational church government. This will vary from church to church with regard to the nature and number of issues that must be brought before the whole congregation for approval. Many would argue that ministries that have pure Elder Rule (e.g. John MacArthur, James MacDonald) aren't really Baptist because that form of governance is seen as violating this principle. (I don't think either man would claim to be Baptist in a strict sense but that's typically how Presbyterians would classify them.) By contrast, the elder led congregationalism espoused by Mark Dever still has the congregation having the ultimate say in matters like discipline. This is based on their reading of Matt. 18.

There are probably some others I'm forgetting. Some in America in particular would cite the priesthood of the believer, "soul competence," "soul liberty" or "soul freedom". I'm not about to try to get into all that (especially soul liberty or competency.) Those phrases are most often today on the lips of more liberal Baptists but that's not universally the case. Whatever validity those terms may have had seems to have been clouded by E.Y. Mullins and his successors who had an overemphasis on individualism that eventually tended to eclipse Biblical Authority. Among Southern Baptists, Article 1 of the 2000 revision of the Baptist Faith and Message reflects a move away from this emphasis.

But I'm not sure about the polity question but some would probably argue that it flows from a "natural" reading of the NT. I'm an independent. But I don't see a technical reason why you couldn't have a Baptist group with Presbyterian or even Episcopal government. I think there may be Baptists groups in other parts of the world that have some form of connectionalism that would be seen as "un-Baptist" in the British Isles or North America. Some would cite the massive bureaucracy of the Southern Baptist Convention as an example. But I'm thinking of something even more connectional than that. I think I've heard of Baptists with a more connectional polity in Europe or Africa.

With regard to history, the British-American Baptist movement from the 17th Century onward is descended from English Separatism. So there was the influence of independency from the very beginning. I'm not that familiar with them but I think anabaptists and similar groups are independent as well.

With regard to church government, typically Baptists who affirm plural eldership (or in other words, those who think churches should ideally have multiple elders) will differ from most Presbyterians and will say that there is no distinction between Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders. So it's 2 office (elders and deacons) instead of 2.5 or 3. But in practice sometimes it ends up being little different than what you find in Presbyterian churches with regard to who is identified as doing the work of the ministry. This is because the elders are sometimes not properly trained and/or are not qualified.

The above is written with Baptists in view and not independent Bible churches and others which may be baptistic but which aren't Baptists in the traditional, historic or confessional use of that term.

 

[Peairtach]

Chris

But I'm not sure about the polity question but some would probably argue that it flows from a "natural" reading of the NT. I'm an independent. But I don't see a technical reason why you couldn't have a Baptist group with Presbyterian or even Episcopal government. I think there may be Baptists groups in other parts of the world that have some form of connectionalism that would be seen as "un-Baptist" in the British Isles or North America. Some would cite the massive bureaucracy of the Southern Baptist Convention as an example. But I'm thinking of something even more connectional than that. I think I've heard of Baptists with a more connectional polity in Europe or Africa.

With regard to history, the British-American Baptist movement from the 17th Century onward is descended from English Separatism. So there was the influence of independency from the very beginning. I'm not that familiar with them but I think anabaptists and similar groups are independent as well.

Thanks for the above post, Chris.

I suppose, I was thinking that you get presbyterian, episcopalian and congregationalist/independent paedobaptists, but that baptists seem to be very wedded to independency, and was wondering if there is a presumed logical, and/or exegetical, relation between the view of baptism and the adherence to independency, or if it was merely historical.

Why, again, do some/many baptists believe in only pastor and deacons, and how, briefly, do they view these offices? Is it important for independent church government that a church not be ruled by a plurality of elders, one or two teaching elders?

 

[Pilgrim]

Why, again, do some/many baptists believe in only pastor and deacons, and how, briefly, do they view these offices? Is it important for independent church government that a church not be ruled by a plurality of elders, one or two teaching elders?

Not being intimately familiar with these issues in the early history of the modern Baptists, my guess is that it is mainly historical. But it seems that there have always been at least a few Baptists in every age who preferred plural eldership. I want to say that Hezekiah Harvey in the North and William B. Johnson in the South made a case for it, among others. I also seem to recall recently reading in a 19th Century Northern Baptist systematic that multiple elders were ideal but not necessary. This was either in A.H. Strong or Alvah Hovey. But in all of the above cases it would not be considered "elder rule".

Some independent "Bible" churches have a more "high handed" model of elder rule than Presbyterians, with the congregation having no vote in choosing its officers, etc. At best they can only raise concerns about a proposed officer, but prospective elders are nominated by the elder board and installed unless clear evidence of unfitness comes to light. I don't know how officers are chosen in Scotland, but that's not how the PCA and OPC do things. But their model would be seen as a hybrid of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism compared to traditional Presbyterianism. (I don't use the term "high handed" to be perjorative, but am simply pointing out that that's how most Baptists would see it.) Within the past 2 years, evangelical megachurch leader James MacDonald said that congregationalism (meaning ultimate authority vested in the congregation) was Satanic. But he then admitted that if the elders become abusive or heretical members can do nothing but leave. I think the dangers of such a system would be obvious. In Presbyterianism there is the option to make appeal to the Presbytery, etc.

Some of it, especially in the USA, may have had to do with the rapid expansion into the frontier. A church was doing good to have one elder/pastor who was qualified, much less 2 or more. And in many cases the Deacons have served as a de-facto Elder board. That's not as big of a deal if they are qualified to be elders, but I'd think such cases would be few and far between especially where all of them would be qualified.

There is a danger of single eldership turning into a one-man dictatorship. On the other hand, some churches have never read Heb. 13:17 and view the pastor as little more than an employee who is to preach, perform marriages and funerals and visit them in the hospital. Many larger churches will have multiple pastors, but they are usually seen as subordinate to the Senior Pastor. Typically, the larger the church, congregational "business meetings" are less frequent, with the pastors and staff handling most routine matters on their own without having to seek congregational input. Since we're talking about Baptists here, these are broad generalizations.

In recent years this is as much the fault of pastors as the congregation. With pastors who are continually looking to move up the career ladder, many smaller churches are doing well to keep a pastor for 2-3 years. So congregations are going to tend to be resistant to a new pastor coming in and making changes. (I've heard of this happening in Presbyterian congregations as well.) The attitude of the deacons is often "We're going to be here long after you're gone" and not without reason. I am familiar with a Baptist church in this region that was founded in the early 20th Century. It has had its current pastor for about 10 years. I think the only longer pastorate there was that of the founding pastor. Otherwise the average tenure was about 18 months. After being there for 6-7 years he moved to institute elder-led congregational government. He was able to do this because they knew he loved them and was committed to them and he patiently taught them. However, I don't know how many (if any) men have been identified, trained and called to that office. The last I knew there weren't any. But unlike most other churches, their "music minister" actually appeared to be qualified to be an elder and was "apt to teach."

 

[Herald]

No less a Baptist pastor and theologian then John L. Dagg articulated the majority view of Baptists in America (including Calvinist pastors) in his Manual of Theology, section IV. I need to brush up on the history and practice of English Baptists from the 16th Century through Spurgeon's time. What is interesting is that Dagg writes against a plurality of elders.

Some have thought that deacons, as well as bishops, are called elders in the Scripture. We read of bishops and deacons in connection, but never of elders and deacons;--of the ordination of elders, without the mention of deacons, when deacons were needed as well as bishops; and of contributions sent to the elders at Jerusalem, after the deacons had been appointed, who were the proper officers to receive and disburse them. It is argued, moreover, that the distinction which appears to be made, in 1 Tim. v. 17, between preaching and ruling elders, naturally suggests that the ruling elders were the deacons of the primitive churches.

In the Presbyterian church, a distinct class of officers exists, called ruling elders. The only Scripture authority claimed for this office, is the text last referred to. This text, however, does not distinguish between different classes of officers, but between different modes of exercising the same office. The word rendered "labor," signifies to labor to exhaustion. Not the elder who merely rules, is accounted worthy of double honor, but the elder who rules well; and the special honor is not due to the elder, as merely invested with the office of ministering in word and doctrine, but as laboring therein--laboring to exhaustion. Thus interpreted, the text furnishes no authority for Presbyterian lay elders; and no argument for supposing that deacons are called elders.

The other arguments to prove that the deacons were included in the eldership of the primitive churches, are not without plausibility, but they are not conclusive; and they are opposed by the facts, that all the elders of the church at Ephesus are called bishops; that all the elders addressed by Peter are said to have the oversight or episcopal office; and that the elders whom Titus was to appoint appear to have been all bishops, inasmuch as the qualifications for the deacon's office are not subjoined to those which are described as necessary for the other office.

A plurality of elders is the practice of most Reformed Baptist churches. It is popular among some baptistic independent churches that are also Calvinistic. John MacArthur is a proponent of a plurality of elders, and has done much to advance its proliferation.

 

[Pilgrim]

No less a Baptist pastor and theologian then John L. Dagg articulated the majority view of Baptists in America (including Calvinist pastors) in his Manual of Theology, section IV. I need to brush up on the history and practice of English Baptists from the 16th Century through Spurgeon's time. What is interesting is that Dagg writes against a plurality of elders.

Some have thought that deacons, as well as bishops, are called elders in the Scripture. We read of bishops and deacons in connection, but never of elders and deacons;--of the ordination of elders, without the mention of deacons, when deacons were needed as well as bishops; and of contributions sent to the elders at Jerusalem, after the deacons had been appointed, who were the proper officers to receive and disburse them. It is argued, moreover, that the distinction which appears to be made, in 1 Tim. v. 17, between preaching and ruling elders, naturally suggests that the ruling elders were the deacons of the primitive churches.

In the Presbyterian church, a distinct class of officers exists, called ruling elders. The only Scripture authority claimed for this office, is the text last referred to. This text, however, does not distinguish between different classes of officers, but between different modes of exercising the same office. The word rendered "labor," signifies to labor to exhaustion. Not the elder who merely rules, is accounted worthy of double honor, but the elder who rules well; and the special honor is not due to the elder, as merely invested with the office of ministering in word and doctrine, but as laboring therein--laboring to exhaustion. Thus interpreted, the text furnishes no authority for Presbyterian lay elders; and no argument for supposing that deacons are called elders.

The other arguments to prove that the deacons were included in the eldership of the primitive churches, are not without plausibility, but they are not conclusive; and they are opposed by the facts, that all the elders of the church at Ephesus are called bishops; that all the elders addressed by Peter are said to have the oversight or episcopal office; and that the elders whom Titus was to appoint appear to have been all bishops, inasmuch as the qualifications for the deacon's office are not subjoined to those which are described as necessary for the other office.

A plurality of elders is the practice of most Reformed Baptist churches. It is popular among some baptistic independent churches that are also Calvinistic. John MacArthur is a proponent of a plurality of elders, and has done much to advance its proliferation.

Bill,

Thanks for posting this. It has indeed been the predominant view among Baptists in the USA, whether Calvinistic or not. Note that what Dagg has in view here is 1) A rejection of two classes of elders as found in Presbyterianism i.e. Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders. He thinks all elders should do both. But this brief excerpt suggests ruling out "lay elders" who are not ordained to the gospel ministry as that has the appearance of a third office or a different class of elders in a formal sense. 2) A rejection of the idea that deacons should function in much the same way as Presbyterian RE's. So it seems that that may have been a problem even in his day. But he may have some Baptist interlocutor in view here as well as Presbyterianism. I'd be interested to know who has argued that "deacons were included in the eldership of primitive churches."

Here is a paper by Mark Dever that briefly recounts the history of plural elders among Baptists and in which he sets forth his elder-led congregational views. Baptists and Elders - 9Marks There are many more resources available at 9marks.org. I think Dever's large work on Polity is available at founders.org.

 

[Herald]

Thanks, Chris. Mark Dever is certainly a respected voice in Calvinistic Baptist and Reformed Baptist communities.

 

[DMcFadden]

The old "cutesy" way of saying it (not original and available lots of places) is the acrostic:

B - The BIBLE is our final authority for what we believe and what we do.
Sometimes this is called the "chief" or the "primary" Baptist distinctive (II Timothy 3:16,17).

A - The AUTONOMY of the Local Church.
Early Baptists tended to stress interdependence through an associational pattern. Some modern Baptists celebrated the independent idea and forget interdependence all together (Acts 15; Matthew 18:15-17).

P - The PRIESTHOOD of the Believer.
Every believer today is a priest and may enter the presence of God directly through only one Mediator, our Great High Priest, Jesus Christ. There is no other human mediator (Hebrews 4:14-16; I Peter 2:5-10).

T - There are TWO Ordinances: Baptism and the Lord's Supper (Acts 2:41,42).
An ordinance is . . .
A command of Christ
A picture of saving truth
Explained in the New Testament
Practiced by the New Testament churches
While some Baptists accept transfer membership by professing believers regardless of when or by what mode they were baptized, it is more customary to require baptism by immersion. Even an adult convert who was baptized by sprinkling would be required to be re-baptized to join most baptist churches I know. The purpose here is to contradict two practices common among Roman Catholic and Protestant churches: infant baptism and sprinkling (pouring). The Lord's Supper is viewed memorialistically. Believers celebrate it because Jesus commanded it, not because of any spiritual efficacy in it.

I - The INDIVIDUAL'S Soul Liberty.
Most Baptists interpret Romans 14:5-12 as permitting people to determine what to believe as their own conscience dictates.

S - The membership is made exclusively of SAVED and baptized individuals.
Regenerate membership was one of the big differentiators separating Baptists from those communions which baptized infants. Naturally, few Baptists are so silly as to think that Acts 2:41-47 guarantees that professing believers will be necessarily saved persons. However, the Baptist idea of the church is founded on the notion of regenerate membership.

T - There are only TWO offices which guide the church: the Pastor and the Deacons.
In practice, some Baptists have begun to speak of elders, even of an elder-run congregation. However, the traditional order (meaning the most commonly found one) would have the Pastor and the Deacons as the two offices. Indeed, when some fundamentalist Baptists (e.g., Falwell) militated for social engagement in the civil order back in the 1980s, there were groups of Baptists that opposed such initiatives on the grounds of separation of church and state.

S - The SEPARATION of Church and State.
One of the reasons some attempt to draw an historical connection to the Anabaptists rather than the emergence of Baptists out of English congregationalism comes from this early distinction between church and state (Acts 4:29; Romans 12:18;13:1-5; I Timothy 2:1-4; I Corinthians 5:9-13). Indeed, during the 1980s when Falwell and other fundamentalist Baptists were agitating for moral majority, many mainstream Baptists objected on such activism based on church and state separation.