Posts Tagged ‘Denominational’

Definitions of Doctrine-Volume 3-Chapter 3-The Name of the Church


We believe a church of Christ is an organized body of baptized disciples, equal in rank and privilege, agreeing on what the Bible teaches, and covenanting to do what Christ has commanded. His command was to make disciples, and this can only be done by preaching the gospel to the lost. And this is the only way the church can perpetuate itself. There will be no disciples tomorrow if they are not made today. Evangelism is the life blood of the church.

We are now confronted with this question: By what name is the church of Christ to be known and identified? What is the proper name of His church? The writer is so bold as to say that there is no proper name by which the church is to be called and identified. If the reader dissents from this, before he is too critical, let him turn to the Bible and find the proper name of the church. And when he has found it, he may reject the position we have taken.

The true church is to be identified by its characteristic features rather than by name. “Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife” (#Re 21:9). I will not show you the name of the bride, but the bride herself.

The followers of Christ are called by a variety of names in the scriptures, but none of them is a proper name. They are called believers, brethren, children of God, children of the kingdom, saints, sheep, disciples, etc. But none of these is to be thought of as the proper name of the church. These names indicate their relation to God, to Christ, and to one another.

They are called “Children of God” because God is their Father.

They are called “Children of the Kingdom,” to indicate that they have been born into the kingdom.

They are called “Children of Abraham” because of their spiritual descent from Abraham who is the father of the faithful.

They are called “brethren” to indicate their relation to one another as equals.

They are called “sheep” figuratively to fit in with the figurative title of Christ as the good Shepherd.

They are called “disciples” because of their relation to Christ as their Teacher.

Now let the reader, if he can, use any of these words as the proper name of the church.

They are called “Christians” three times in the New Testament, but this name seems to have been given as a term of reproach. “And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch” (#Ac 11:26). This name originated at Antioch, but this does not mean that it was then and there that they began to call one another by this name. In #Ac 26:28 the name Christian is used by King Agrippa as a sort of slur. I do not agree with the usual interpretation that Agrippa was about to become a Christian. The Greek here is difficult to translate and there are several different renderings. Perhaps the latest, “Good News for Modern Man” renders it thus: “In this short time you think you will make me a Christian?” Notice, that in reply, Paul did not use the word Christian. In #1Pe 4:16 the word Christian is used the third and last time. The Amplified New Testament renders the verse like this: “But if (one is ill treated and suffers) as a Christian (which he is contemptuously called), let him not be ashamed, but give glory to God that he is (deemed worthy) to suffer in this name.” Be that as it may, these verses afford little ground for applying the name Christian to the church. If the name “Christian Church” is correct it is strange that we have no example of any of the believers calling one another Christians, and that no epistle was addressed to “The Christian Church.” Nobody objects to being called a Christian unless it is used as a term of reproach, in which case we should be glad to suffer in this name.

Several Bible names have been adopted as the proper name of the church by several denominations. For example, we have “The United Brethren,” and “The Plymouth Brethren,” “The Disciples,” and “The Church of God,” and “The Church of Christ,” and “The Church of the Latter Day Saints.” It is a wonder that we do not have a denomination named, “The Sheep Church.” If any of the Bible names were meant to be the proper name of the church, then the most heretical and false churches could adopt the name as proof they were the true church.

Names given to churches in the New Testament indicate the kind of people who were in the church. And for any denomination to take to itself any one of these names is to imply that such people are to be found only in their denomination. For instance, the Mormons call their church “The Church of the Latter Day Saints,” clearly implying and claiming that they are the only saints in the latter days. Perish the thought!


Let us now examine the name Baptist for a church of Christ. We never use the definite article “The Baptist Church,” without locating a particular church. There is no such thing as “The Baptist Church” in a provincial or national sense, as in the case of most other denominations, such as “The Methodist Episcopal Church,” or “The Presbyterian Church,” etc. When Baptists wish to speak of something larger than a particular assembly they use the plural: Baptist Churches.

The name Baptist is a denominational name to distinguish it from other denominations. There were no denominational names until there came to be distinct denominations. Before the time of the so called Reformation under Martin Luther there were scattered churches under different names, and the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. The Reformation started in the Roman Catholic Church, and was only partial. The reformers took with them some of the heresies of Rome such as baptismal regeneration, a graded ministry and a form of government much like that of Rome. And some of the Protestant denominations hated and persecuted Baptists.

Baptists are sometimes accused of being narrow bigots because we believe Baptist churches are after the New Testament pattern. The line must be drawn somewhere, for all the hundreds of diverse and conflicting denominations cannot be the church Christ founded and to which He promised perpetuity.

While claiming to be the true church, Baptists do not deny the salvation of others. We put salvation in the person of Jesus Christ, and believe any and every sinner who pins his faith and hope to Jesus Christ will be saved. We never tell the sinner to unite with a Baptist Church in order to be saved. Like John the Baptist we point the sinner to the Lamb of God, even the Lord Jesus Christ, Whose blood cleanseth from all sin.

The writer is a Baptist but not a Baptist braggart. We lay no claim to superiority in character or conduct or education. When you find a Baptist with a superiority complex, you may be sure that he is an off brand. The churches of the first century were not made up of perfect people in character and conduct. In an experience of salvation the sinner becomes nothing in his own eyes and Christ becomes all in all. Before his conversion Saul of Tarsus was proud and self-righteous, but after he trusted Jesus as the Christ he thought of himself as less than the least of all saints. “Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ” (#Eph 3:8); “For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin” (#Ro 7:14-25); “Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing. Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample” (#Php 3:1-17); “For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (#1Co 15:9).

The first New Testament preacher was called John the Baptist. “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea” (#Mt 3:1); “For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John” (#Mt 11:13); “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it” (#Lu 16:16). Proof that John’s baptism was valid is in the fact that the followers of Christ and members of the first church had only John’s baptism. The only difference between John’s baptism and that of Christ is that John’s looked forward to the coming of Christ, and since then valid baptism looks backward to the Christ who has already come. John baptized those who confessed their sins and who trusted the Christ who was to come; we baptize those who profess faith in Jesus Christ who has already come.

C. D. Cole-Definitions of Doctrine-Volume 3

Random Thoughts

December 15, 2015 Leave a comment

by Tom Chantry

Thomas Sowell hasn’t sued me yet, so here are some more “random thoughts on the passing scene.”

Everybody loves Owen. Presbyterians and Reformed on both sides of the sanctification debate are trying to claim him. Baptists have loved him for a long time; I wonder exactly how many of us have named sons after him? But when he showed up on a Baptist book cover, objections were raised by – of all people – an Anglican who wanted to claim him! All this would likely amuse the man himself, who was once stripped of his living by Presbyterians and denied preferment by the Church of England when he would not conform. At least the 17th century Baptists didn’t persecute him; herbivores at the bottom of the food chain never persecute anyone.

There are two types of theologians: innovators who present new combinations of thought, and plodders who defend the old paths. In fifty years the innovators will be remembered by many, but only as villains. Meanwhile a remnant will remember the plodders as true fathers in the faith.




Read the entire article here.

Reformed Baptists and the Purity of the Church

December 8, 2015 1 comment

by Tom Chantry

Having opened the week posting on the history of friendly interaction between Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists, I’ve made my way around to writing about a recent article by Westminster in California’s President, W. Robert Godfrey. Godfrey’s essay asks whether or not the Belgic Confession (one of the three confessional standards of the Dutch Reformed churches) indicates that Baptist churches are not churches, and, by implication, that Baptists are not Christians.

Godfrey’s conclusion is that our churches are churches, and our members Christians, even if our doctrine of baptism is imperfect. Far from taking offense at the implication that we are imperfect in this area (which is after all only to say that Godfrey actually subscribes to his church’s standards), I find myself challenged by the manner in which he applies his confessional standards with a spirit of charity.

This raises the question for Reformed Baptists: does our own confession lead us in the same catholic direction, and if so, are also we able to combine doctrinal rigor with a charitable outlook on the rest of Christ’s church?




Read the entire article here.

Godfrey and the Baptists

by Tom Chantry

This week I have been addressing the matter of friendship and cooperation across denominational boundaries within the broader Reformed world. Yesterday, in writing about the example of cooperation being set by Westminster Seminary California and the Institute for Reformed Baptist Studies, I mentioned a recent article by W. Robert Godfrey, WSC’s president, entitled “The Belgic Confession and the True Church.”

The article is being published in By Common Confession, a festschrift for James Renihan, dean of IRBS, and addresses the question, “Does the Belgic Confession, as some claim, require its subscribers to confess that all Baptist churches are false churches?” What is remarkable in this essay is that Godfrey…..




Read the entire article here.

The Challenge of Cooperation

November 24, 2015 Leave a comment

By Tom Chantry

Yesterday I wrote about the spirit of friendship and cooperation which has formed at least part of the true history of interaction between Presbyterians and Reformed on the one hand and Reformed Baptists on the other. Fellowship has flourished where there has been mutual appreciation and trust. Yet it seems that recently, distrust is growing. I concluded by asking:

In this context, two questions arise. First, is similar friendship and collaboration sustainable any longer? And second, is such cooperation across denominational and confessional lines even a good idea?

My answer to each of those questions is a resounding “Yes.” First, though, we need to understand why such fellowship is challenged.

The New Calvinism

I am convinced that the main challenge to interdenominational cooperation among serious, confessional churches is posed by the movement which has come to be known as “New Calvinism.” New Calvinism is indeed…….




Read the entire article here.

Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 3

By Eric Ayala

For the past two weeks we have been examining “The Trail of Blood” by J.M. Carroll. You can view those posts here: Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 1 and Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 2

Last time we looked at the beliefs of the various groups that J.M. Carroll places in his “Trail of Blood.” Mostly, it was simply a collection of heretics. It would seem that Carroll’s only real criteria of if someone was Baptist or not is that the church in general did not accept them. I know that some who may be adherents of the book may claim that the heretical beliefs mentioned of these groups were mere slander against them from the Papists. The problem however, is that Carroll offers no defense of them or explanation; he never interacts with these groups or their beliefs. Carroll merely mentions their name and then moves on without even linking any of his own marks of Baptist practice or distinctives to them. Not only does Carroll not excuse these groups, he doesn’t even acknowledge there is a problem with them, slanderous or otherwise. They are mere names on a list. There are many other points that we could talk about, but in the end, his thesis is disproven.




Read the entire article here.

Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 2

September 30, 2015 Leave a comment

By Eric Ayala

Last week we examined the problems of J.M. Carroll’s anachronistic understanding of history. That post can be read here Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 1 Because Carroll claims that the Baptist line can be traced through various historical groups; we will thus examine them in this post, as it is central to his thesis. Carroll actually does little to establish these groups with any factual link to Baptists, but nonetheless he does list them in support of his claim.

So what groups comprise this Trail of Blood from his title?




Read the entire article here.

Mopping Up the Trail of Blood: Part 1

September 23, 2015 Leave a comment

By Eric Ayala

For those who, like me, grew up in an independent, fundamental Baptist church you may be familiar with a little book by J.M. Carroll entitled, “The Trail of Blood: Following the Christians Down through the Centuries or, The History of Baptist Churches from the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day.” While that is quite a mouthful to say, this book published in 1931 is commonly referred to as simply, “The Trail of Blood.”

The main thesis of this booklet is that Baptists are not protestants, were thus never part of the Roman Catholic Church and can trace their continued denominational line all the way back to John the Baptist (which Carroll on more than one occasion implies may be a proper denominational name given to John by Christ himself). This post, and the next two that will follow, will examine the claims of the book and show them to be without any historical warrant.




Read the entire article here.

Many think it a badge of honor to be non-denominational


Three benefits ought to follow from thus teaching our youth:

Secondly, we may thus render them better Christians. I agree with an eminent Presbyterian minister who recently said “We make people better Christians by making them better Presbyterians, better Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians.” There are some very excellent people in our time who think it a merit to be entirely undenominational, and who proclaim that they “love one church as well as another.” But, where not deluded, such persons are few and quite exceptional; in general, the truest, most devoted, and most useful Christians are strong in their denominational convictions and attachments. I repeat, then, that by proper instruction in our distinctive views we shall really make our young people better Christians.

And, thirdly, we thus prepare them to explain and advocate these views in conversation, a thing which is often called for, and when properly managed may be very useful.

John A. Broadus-The Duty of Baptists to Teach Their Distinctive Views