All These Different Kinds of Baptists!

[jenptcfan]

Hi everyone!

I'm Southern Baptist and have been all my life, but I've been wondering what the difference is between different kind of Baptists. For instance, my parents were raised Missionary Baptist. I've also heard of Free Baptists, Reformed Baptists, etc. Does anyone know the history of how all these different branches came about and what the main differences are between them?

Thanks!

 

[Cright]

Jenptcfan,

I am currently starting studies on this part of history. I just did a quick search and found this site. I don't know how historicly accurate it is since I'm only studying the 1st and 2nd items on the list.... but looked okay as far as I can tell from the very brief paragraph it gives on each subject.

Hope it helps. C

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

 

[jenptcfan]

Jenptcfan,

I am currently starting studies on this part of history. I just did a quick search and found this site. I don't know how historicly accurate it is since I'm only studying the 1st and 2nd items on the list.... but looked okay as far as I can tell from the very brief paragraph it gives on each subject.

Hope it helps. C

http://www.yellowstone.net/baptist/history.htm

Thanks for posting a link!

I have skimmed through it and it seems to be written by someone who dislikes or doesn't understand Southern Baptist theology...so I'm not sure how much of the rest of it is credible.

Whereas Baptists have historically been non-creedal, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC is forcing creedalism upon Southern Baptists through the forced implementation of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. Whereas Southern Baptists have traditionally believed in the Priesthood of all Believers, the fundamentalist leadership positions pastoral authority above the Priesthood of Believers. Whereas Baptists have historically held to the authority of Scripture and looked to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the criterion for interpreting the Bible, the fundamentalist leadership claims that looking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the authority for faith is a liberal position. Instead, they have positioned the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as the only valid way in which to approach Scripture.

As such, the fundamentalist leadership of the SBC is bent upon refashioning Southern Baptist doctrine and polity into the historical Roman Catholic model of creedalism and religious hierarchy. This agenda continues to cause much division among Baptists, including splits on the state level of Baptist life. Currently, Texas, Virginia and Missouri each have two competing Baptist conventions, with one convention in each state pledging loyalty to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, and the other convention in each state contending that the Bible supercedes any human creeds. A number of other states are witnessing a prolonged struggle over the issue of the BF&M 2000, with many state Baptist conventions refusing the dictates of the SBC to accept the BF&M 2000 as their sole statement of belief. In general, many state Baptist conventions are asserting their autonomous rights in distancing themselves from the creedalistic, fundamentalist SBC.

I bolded the part that particularly disturbed me. The only time I have ever heard the BF&M ever mentioned has been when someone had a question as to what Southern Baptists believe. It gives a good summary of beliefs, but is not viewed as being "authoritative", and I've never heard any pastor say that looking to the Holy Spirit/Jesus as authority is "liberal"...It's encouraged!

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting. Didn't mean to go off into a rant.

 

[Frankie]

Thanks for posting a link!

I have skimmed through it and it seems to be written by someone who dislikes or doesn't understand Southern Baptist theology...so I'm not sure how much of the rest of it is credible.

I bolded the part that particularly disturbed me. The only time I have ever heard the BF&M ever mentioned has been when someone had a question as to what Southern Baptists believe. It gives a good summary of beliefs, but is not viewed as being "authoritative", and I've never heard any pastor say that looking to the Holy Spirit/Jesus as authority is "liberal"...It's encouraged!

Anyway, I just thought that was interesting. Didn't mean to go off into a rant.

No kidding, I agree. The baptist church I attend is one that some baptist would consider "liberal". I have never understood why they think this though. We believe in and worship the one true God of the Bible, we practice the Lord's supper, we believe that after coming to Christ, one should be water baptized as a joyous show of our commitment and faith in Jesus for our salvation.....I guess maybe some of our baptist brothers and sisters think we are liberal because we don't have a dress code for church and we are ok with a glass of wine now and then on special occasions and we use more than just the KJV of the Bible. I really don't know.

 

[eutychus]

The information found in that article about the "Controversy within the SBC" is spun. In the 70s, there was a conservative resurgence in the convention because the leaders in the convention were playing the liberals with Scripture, and they weren't giving it all the authority it needed. After the uprising, the fundamentalists (led by Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler) have made sure that sola scriptura has played a very important part in the convention.

The reason for convention splits is because there are some liberal state conventions (Missouri being one of them), and they are not following Scripture.

If you want to know what's happened within the convention over the past twenty years, I highly recommend Paul Pressler's A Hill On Which to Die.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/list.htm
~a good list of links regarding Baptist history

 

[Cright]

hmm.. I dunno either .. sorry if it's a bad link guys . Maybe I should read more before I post eh?

 

[eutychus]

hmm.. I dunno either .. sorry if it's a bad link guys . Maybe I should read more before I post eh?

It's not your fault. It's not like the site had a big red sign on it that cried "FOUL! FOUL!"

 

[Frankie]

It's not your fault. It's not like the site had a big red sign on it that cried "FOUL! FOUL!"

 

[lozzie]

I've never really understood how the US could have so many different 'types' of Basptists. Here (Australia) Baptist is Baptist and thats really all there is to it.

 

[Sinai]

Thanks for posting a link! I have skimmed through it and it seems to be written by someone who dislikes or doesn't understand Southern Baptist theology...so I'm not sure how much of the rest of it is credible.

The part you quoted is not really indicative of "someone who dislikes or doesn't understand Southern Baptist theology." Rather, it appears that the writer does understand some of the major points that Baptists (including the SBC) have historically believed--and the changes made by the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message. I agree with you, however, that the words used by the writer appear to suggest that the writer disapproves of the changes.

I bolded the part that particularly disturbed me. ["Whereas Baptists have historically held to the authority of Scripture and looked to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the criterion for interpreting the Bible, the fundamentalist leadership claims that looking to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as the authority for faith is a liberal position. Instead, they have positioned the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 as the only valid way in which to approach Scripture."] The only time I have ever heard the BF&M ever mentioned has been when someone had a question as to what Southern Baptists believe. It gives a good summary of beliefs, but is not viewed as being "authoritative", and I've never heard any pastor say that looking to the Holy Spirit/Jesus as authority is "liberal"...It's encouraged!

I suspect that the writer you quoted was attempting to show one of the differences between prior Baptist Faith and Messages and the 2000 version. The 1963 BF&M said "The criterion by which the Bible is to be interpreted is Jesus Christ," while the 2000 BF&M omitted that language; although the 1963 BF&M reaffirms the historic Baptist opposition to being bound by creeds that might allow one Baptist to restrict or control another Baptist's interpretation of scripture (violating the basic Baptist doctrines of the priesthood of the believer and soul competency), the 2000 version not only omits any such language, but it also says that the 2000 BF&M can be used for doctrinal accountability. Although the 2000 version does not say that it is the "only valid way in which to approach Scripture," that was a justification used by the SBC leadership when they fired all those missionaries (and others) who refused to sign a pledge that they fully agreed with the 2000 BF&M and would conform to its teachings and doctrine.

 

[sunshinejennii]

Lozzie - yea same for me, as far as i knew before i joined this site there was just baptists not different types, actually even among different denominations in my town theirs little difference. does it matter? we all believe jesus dies for us, while im interested in denominational differences and things surely its not relevant how we worship we're still brothers and sisters of christ!

 

[Sinai]

The information found in that article about the "Controversy within the SBC" is spun. In the 70s, there was a conservative resurgence in the convention because the leaders in the convention were playing the liberals with Scripture, and they weren't giving it all the authority it needed. After the uprising, the fundamentalists (led by Paige Patterson and Paul Pressler) have made sure that sola scriptura has played a very important part in the convention. The reason for convention splits is because there are some liberal state conventions (Missouri being one of them), and they are not following Scripture.

Thank you, eutychus, for doing a good job of summarizing what the fundamentalists said their reasons were for taking over the SBC.

If you want to know what's happened within the convention over the past twenty years, I highly recommend Paul Pressler's A Hill On Which to Die.

I would also recommend Dr. Pressler's book, but would add the cautionary reminder that it is substantially more slanted or "spun" than the article eutychus complains about in his post. If you want to really understand the SBC controversy, you should read material from both sides.

Incidentally, you will probably find that some of the material refers to the two principal sides as being conservatives and moderates. Such a distinction is incorrect, since both sides are quite conservative. Which one is more conservative depends upon one's definition of the term "conservative" (and a good case can be made for either of them being the most conservative). It is probably more correct to refer to the two groups as fundamentalist Baptists and historically oriented Baptists. I have friends on both sides of the controversy, and receive material from both sides.....

 

[Echoes Peak]

Lozzie - yea same for me, as far as i knew before i joined this site there was just baptists not different types, actually even among different denominations in my town theirs little difference. does it matter? we all believe jesus dies for us, while im interested in denominational differences and things surely its not relevant how we worship we're still brothers and sisters of christ!

I think amongst the majority of Baptists (Southern and National/American) their doctrine is pretty much the same. I believe the initial major split came over the issue of slavery. Funnily enough, I attend a Baptist church in the South...but its not Southern Baptist(SBC) because its a historically, black church. I asked my pastor what the "major" differences were between us and the SBC, and he promptly informed me, there really weren't any. In fact, our new members manuals (that outline our doctrines and practices) was actually printed by the SBC. Some days, I wish people would just get over some of this sordid history and unite some of these churches. Honestly.

And you're right about other places JUST being called Baptists. I lived and travelled to other countries, and I have yet to hear the level of distinctions amongst Baptists as we have in the States.

 

[Sinai]

I've never really understood how the US could have so many different 'types' of Basptists. Here (Australia) Baptist is Baptist and thats really all there is to it.

If you consider some of the major doctrines that have characterized Baptists over the centuries, it really should not be particularly surprising that there are so many different varieties.

For example, Baptists generally regard the Bible as their sole authority, but insist that every believer has the right and responsibility to read the scriptures and to prayerfully determine the meaning of the passages in harmony with the overall teachings of the Bible. As the great Baptist theologian Dr. Herschel H. Hobbs said, "The moment a Baptist seeks to coerce another person--even another Baptist--in matters of religion, he violates the basic belief of Baptists."

Think about that for a moment. If not even the President of a Baptist denominatin can dictate what his subordinates are to believe about a particular issue or scriptural passage, and if all Baptists are encouraged to study the Bible for themselves, there is a greater liklihood that different believers may disagree on certain points. As long as their areas of agreement significantly outweigh the areas of disagreement and as long as they can respect each other's opinions and right to hold each interpretation, they probably can work together toward reaching a common goal. If the differences become too pronounced or if they focus on those differences rather than cooperating with each other, they are more likely to split or fragment into two or more groups.

Now add the fact that Baptist churches are generally autonomous and are free to associate with similar churches or groups of churches. Is there any wonder there are so many different varieties of Baptists?

 

[sunshinejennii]

ok good point! but here we're just baptists and within churchs views differ. you accept that and just refer to ceratin baptist churchs as being more evangelistic, traditional, lively etc. etc.

 

[JOYfulbeliever]

I grew up in an independent baptist church - now, I attend a southern baptist church. I'll be honest. The only difference between the two is the music style and the dress. Doctrinally, there is no difference. The music in the southern baptists churches that I have attended is a bit more contemporary - the church that I attend sings praise hymns, as well as the old traditional hymns. The independent baptist church that I grew up in believed that if it wasn't directly from the hymnbook, it was secular and shouldn't be in the church. Okay, that's a little extreme - but it isn't far off! If the music had any beat whatsoever, it was from the devil. The dress was the other difference. In the independent, females wore skirts to all services. Pants were like an unspoken evil and were "forbidden" without actually coming out and saying "pants are forbidden." Dress was often the topic of sermons. In the southern, it's a more relaxed dress. It is nothing to see one person on a sunday morning in a nice dress, sitting next to a person in jeans. They don't care what you wear on the outside (to an extent - they probably wouldn't condone dressing like a hoochy-mama! ). It's what is on the inside that they are concerned about.

Those are the 2 biggest differences that I have found. I also realized we eat a lot more in my southern baptist church than we ever did in the independent! That could be just a difference in the acutally churches though, not the denominations.

/me stops rambling before someone gives her the boot.