Difference between Baptists and Evangelicals

[Alvarillo]

I’m afraid I must once again make a show of my ignorance in hopes of finding a solution to it. I have no idea what differences there are between Baptists and Evangelicals in terms of both history and theology. Would anybody care to make me just a little less ignorant?

 

[Alvarillo]

bump

 

[Alvarillo]

No luck? It seems I’m doomed to live in ignorance.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

I’m afraid I must once again make a show of my ignorance in hopes of finding a solution to it. I have no idea what differences there are between Baptists and Evangelicals in terms of both history and theology. Would anybody care to make me just a little less ignorant?

Well, Baptists are an actual denomination, like the Methodists, Lutherans, Assemblies of God, etc. They’re a well-defined organization with founding doctrines and a governing body. “Evangelical,” though, is a descriptive term for a kind of Christian, like “traditionalist,” “Trinitarian,” “pietist,” etc. Roughly, it’s a Christian stance that tends to emphasize the experience of conversion, of missionary activity, of Biblical authority, and of preaching the gospel.

There’s a high overlap between evangelicalism and certain Christian churches–especially the Baptists, traditionally black denominations, most Pentecostal denominations, and many other smaller sects. Evangelicals don’t usually set the tone in Catholicism or in more mainline Protestant denominations, but they’re certainly found there.

Hope this helps.

 

[Alvarillo]

Very much, thank you.

 

[Izdaari]

Well, Baptists are an actual denomination, like the Methodists, Lutherans, Assemblies of God, etc. They’re a well-defined organization with founding doctrines and a governing body. “Evangelical,” though, is a descriptive term for a kind of Christian, like “traditionalist,” “Trinitarian,” “pietist,” etc. Roughly, it’s a Christian stance that tends to emphasize the experience of conversion, of missionary activity, of Biblical authority, and of preaching the gospel.

There’s a high overlap between evangelicalism and certain Christian churches–especially the Baptists, traditionally black denominations, most Pentecostal denominations, and many other smaller sects. Evangelicals don’t usually set the tone in Catholicism or in more mainline Protestant denominations, but they’re certainly found there.

Hope this helps.

As Le Cracquere said, there would be a lot of overlap. Most conservative Baptists would probably consider themselves Evangelical as well. Maybe not liberal Baptists or fundamental Baptists.

I belong to an Assemblies of God church, which is part of the Pentecostal group, and also of the Evangelical group. My particular congregation would probably also be considered Emergent-friendly, if not actually part of the Emergent group.

 

[Contarini]

I’m afraid I must once again make a show of my ignorance in hopes of finding a solution to it. I have no idea what differences there are between Baptists and Evangelicals in terms of both history and theology. Would anybody care to make me just a little less ignorant?

First of all, “Baptist” is a much narrower category, though it still covers a number of different denominations and loose associations of independent churches. The core Baptist beliefs (beyond those shared by all Trinitarian Christians) are

1. Justification by faith alone, which in the Baptist tradition is associated with an experience of conversion (unlike the Lutheran approach).
2. Sola Scriptura, which Baptists take farther than many other Protestants, being suspicious of any “human” creeds or confessions.
3. A derivative of the above is what Baptists sometimes call “soul competency,” which means that the individual can and should decide the truth on their own, being directly responsible to God. Thus, Baptists are among the most likely of all Protestants to think that people should just be able to open up the Bible and figure out the truth, although not all Baptists hold this belief in quite such a simplistic fashion.
4. Congregational ecclesiology–specifically, the belief that the visible Church is purely local (in contrast not only to Catholicism but to the more traditional Protestant belief in a universal visible Church constituted by the Word and the Sacraments.) Therefore, any denominational structures Baptists may create are regarded purely as means whereby the local churches can coordinate their efforts. Traditionally they are not given authority over local congregations. The Southern Baptist Convention, in its attempt to fight liberalism, has recently taken on more authority than many Baptists are comfortable with–and has been accused of violating “soul competency” and the “no creed but the Bible” principle as well.
5. Believers’ baptism. I probably should have put this higher, but since it is the obvious one I wanted to put it after some of the other principles.
6. A purely symbolic view of the sacraments, which are usually called “ordinances.” Perhaps this should be listed as a common belief rather than a core one, since there are Baptists who would hold to more of a Calvinist “spiritual presence” view of the Eucharist, and a Baptist friend of mine at Duke told me that I had succeeded in convincing him that baptism was more than just a symbol (though he continued to reject infant baptism). Linked to this is an emphasis on preaching and a mistrust of ritual.
7. Democratic government of local congregations–the congregation itself is the ultimate authority. This affects the Baptist theology of ordination. Ordination is the act of a local congregation. Seminary education (in the more fundamentalist churches, this may be seen as unnecessary or even harmful, but most Baptists don’t go this far) usually follows ordination. (I think this is a good approach, myself.)

The Southern Baptists are the best-known Baptists in the U.S. They are the largest Protestant denomination in this country, and I’ve even heard speculations that in terms of active attendance they may outnumber Catholics, given the Catholic habit of counting all baptized Catholics as members even if they never go to church. However, it’s important to remember that not all Baptists are like the Southern Baptists.

Southern Baptists, and most Baptists in the English-speaking world, are historically Calvinists, but many of them (particularly in America) weakened or abandoned their Calvinism in the 19th century. There has been a resurgence of Calvinism, especially among the Southern Baptists. But for many Southern Baptists and other Baptists, the one distinctively Calvinist teaching they hold is “eternal security,” which really means something quite different apart from the doctrine of predestination on which it originally rested. In Continental Europe, Baptists are less likely to be influenced by Calvinism at all. The same is true for Baptists in the U.S. who have Scandinavian or other European origin, such as the Baptist General Conference (historically Swedish-American). That being said, one of the best-known pastors/theologians of that particular denomination, John Piper, is a Calvinist.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Evangelicalism is harder to define, though I’ve tried many times on these forums. Basically it is a broad movement within Protestantism (now affecting Catholics and maybe even some Eastern Christians as well) emphasizing personal experience and the authority of Scripture (especially as studied and applied personally). Evangelicalism originated as “Pietism” in German Lutheranism, although the British Calvinist movement called “Puritanism” exercised a lot of influence as well. The Methodist movement in 18th-century England created a new strand of evangelicalism, and these new strands keep popping up–one such, Pentecostalism, is classed by some scholars today as a branch of Christianity all its own, distinct from Protestantism (I don’t favor this classification, but I understand why some do).

In the last 50-60 years, the term has been used by some North American Protestants to describe a broad coalition distinct both from fundamentalism and from liberalism. By and large, this “new evangelicalism” captures the breadth of the historic movement, encompassing Calvinists and Arminians, those who practice and those who reject infant baptism, etc. But the lines distinguishing evangelicals from fundamentalists on one side, liberals on another, and traditional confessional Protestants on yet another are often quite thin and confusing. The organization’s statement of faith (to which I subscribe as a condition of employment), is pretty basic.

Most Baptists are evangelicals in one way or another, though there is a significant minority of liberal Baptists. However, there is a much larger segment of fundamentalist Baptists who are excluded in principle from the “new evangelicalism” (and regard it as apostasy). Even the Southern Baptist Convention (which was at the time not as close to fundamentalism as it is now) held aloof from the NAE in the beginning, seeing itself as something quite distinctive and not part of a common evangelical front.

On the other side of the coin, evangelical distinctives often sound like a looser version of the Baptist distinctives mentioned above. Many people refer to evangelicals broadly as “Baptistic,” though there are folks like me who consider ourselves evangelicals but are definitely not “Baptistic.” So we have the paradox that Baptists have been historically a very important part of evangelicalism, to the point that some folks almost identify evangelicals with Baptists, and yet many Baptists regard evangelicalism as too broad and mushy a concept.

Edwin