the Baptist Distinctives ... what makes a Baptist, a Baptist:

[Albion]

I suspect that you are missing the forest for the trees.
If a church holds all of these “not unique” beliefs then it believes everything that makes a Baptist church … Baptist. (In which case, it is probably a Baptist church whatever it calls itself).

Theologicaly speaking, that might be correct, but it wouldn't make that church have credentials as a Baptist church or be part of any Baptist denomination. That is indeed the situation with some of the "non-denominational" congregations.

Sometimes, the word used when this is the situation is "Baptistic."

 

[9Rock9]

Graduates of SBC seminaries disagree on questions as basic as Calvinism (called Particular Baptists after the belief that God saves “particular” people) vs Arminianism (called General Baptists after the belief that the salvation offered by Jesus is “general” = “available to all”). Even within a large Baptist Congregation, it is common to have both General and Particular Baptists worshiping together. [Remember the Baptist Distinctive about everyone having an obligation to follow their own conscience within the bounds of ‘Sola Scriptura’].

So the concept of a specific “Baptist” set of beliefs is peculiar (outside of the Biblical basics … you start talking about salvation without Jesus and the Elders will sit you down for a serious BIBLE conversation.) Go and read the Baptist Faith and Message for yourself and see if there is anything in it that YOUR church would disagree with. It is pretty basic stuff. Other than Credobaptism (baptize believers, do not baptize babies) almost any denomination would agree with most of the BF&M.

I think the BF&M has come under fire for allegedly promoting semi-pelagianism, but otherwise, it's a pretty good summary of Southern Baptist beliefs.

 

[atpollard]

I think the BF&M has come under fire for allegedly promoting semi-pelagianism, but otherwise, it's a pretty good summary of Southern Baptist beliefs.

It has, although I think that it is more guilty of not strongly renouncing “semi-Pelageanism”. Had it renounced any and all forms of synergism, as some early Baptist confessions did, it would read as a Particular Baptist document that would find disapproval among General Baptists. I think that it deliberately charted a neutral tone as a compromise between the “TULIP” and “Free Will” positions to avoid alienating either historic Baptist position.

I would be happy to discuss some specific wording within it if you would like. Is the BF&M 2000 still the most current? That is the last one that I studied in detail.