Interactions with Evangelicals?

[Jon_S_1]

Other posters like Itwin and BeProfOSX can give better answers than I, but to put it concisely, Baptists are a subset of Evangelicals, except for those Baptists who are Fundamentalists.

One area where not all Evangelicals would be in agreement with Baptists is the practice of infant baptism. The Evangelical Congregational church I grew up in has roots in being (very roughly) a Methodist church for the Pennsylvania Germans who didn’t speak English in PA’s early days of European settlement. We practice both infant baptism and adult baptism, calling both a sacrament. The Evangelical Free Church denomination I now attend has Lutheran roots, and again, both types of baptism are practiced.

Baptists, however, only consider believer’s baptism to be complete baptism. So when they baptize someone after a confession of faith, even if that person was baptized as an infant by any other church, Baptists believe that is that person’s first baptism, not a re-baptism.

I’m sorry but I don’t believe baptists are a subsection of evangelicals.

Baptist trace their roots down a completely different line than evangelicals.

Evangelicals trace back through Scandanavian Protestantism. Where as Baptist go back through England.

Yes they are very similar in many ways but as you know being an EV Free member their is only a loose affiliation with other evangelical churches compared with the hierarchy within different baptist denominations. That’s what I meant by structured earlier. Organizationally structured not religiously or liturgically. In those areas there is not much difference.

But this conversation also goes to show the great difficulty in even defining these terms as they are so varied.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Yes. Historically they are. Most continue to be. There are some liberal or theologically “progressive” Baptists who would not be considered and wouldn’t consider themselves Evangelical but these tend to be in the smaller Baptist denominations like American Baptist Churches USA (which can have the “anything goes” mentality of the mainline Protestants).

What??? This makes no sense. ALLLLLLLL Baptist churches are autonomous. Whether they are part of a local association or a national Convention, it doesn’t matter. All Baptist churches are fundamentally autonomous as an article of faith.

I agree.

As a (evangelical) Pentecostal, I disagree Baptist ideas about pneumatology and the like. However, that isn’t because they “aren’t Evangelical.” It’s because Evangelicalism is diverse.

If you want to see an “Evangelical” denomination, look at the Southern Baptist Convention.

Ltwin,

I understand that baptist must "hold their own churches " but to be called baptist they must join a baptist organization/denomination that has prescribed doctrine for those denominations. For example the Southern a Baptist Convention. The individual church could leave and join another group at some point but would no longer be “southern baptist” or “american baptist” or a number of others.

Evangelical churches , in general can be free or non denominational, or part of the EFCA or not and be called evangelical.

 

[LiberalPrincess]

I was surprised to learn there are evangelicals here in Manhattan, including a large evangelical church a few blocks from where I live . I know a few on the West Coast though.

 

[ltwin]

I’m sorry but I don’t believe baptists are a subsection of evangelicals.

Then you would be wrong.

Baptist trace their roots down a completely different line than evangelicals.

Evangelicals trace back through Scandanavian Protestantism. Where as Baptist go back through England.

You do realize that what people refer to as Evangelicalism today was formed as a result of revivals in England and America in the 1700s and 1800s?

Yes they are very similar in many ways but as you know being an EV Free member their is only a loose affiliation with other evangelical churches compared with the hierarchy within different baptist denominations. That’s what I meant by structured earlier. Organizationally structured not religiously or liturgically. In those areas there is not much difference.

You think the Southern Baptist Convention is more centralized than the E-Free Church? Let me tell you something . . . . No one is going to make a Baptist congregation do what it doesn’t want to do . . . especially some denominational bureaucracy.

But this conversation also goes to show the great difficulty in even defining these terms as they are so varied.

No . . . it demonstrates the importance of understanding what words mean and how they are correctly used. Anyone can apply any word to anything. I can call myself a Catholic Christian because I adhere to the Nicene Creed. But that doesn’t mean when Roman Catholics tell me that I’m not a Catholic that I can say . . .

“Oh, well this just goes to show the great difficulty in using the word “Catholic” since its meaning is so varied.”

 

[AbideWithMe]

I’m sorry but I don’t believe baptists are a subsection of evangelicals.

Baptist trace their roots down a completely different line than evangelicals.

Evangelicals trace back through Scandanavian Protestantism. Where as Baptist go back through England.

Jon, I’m lost as to what you’re thinking.

Evangelicals can have all sorts of roots–Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed, etc. They can be within mainline churches, or, mostly in the US, they can be separate churches (which I think was an unfortunate development in the US). While it’s true the EFree Church of America has Scandinavian roots, others have roots from all over.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I was surprised to learn there are evangelicals here in Manhattan, including a large evangelical church a few blocks from where I live . I know a few on the West Coast though.

Yes, that’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church, for other readers.

 

[ltwin]

I understand that baptist must "hold their own churches " but to be called baptist they must join a baptist organization/denomination that has prescribed doctrine for those denominations.

No they do not. To be a Baptist a church need only subscribe to the historical Baptist tenants, which are basically those of classical Protestantism

the Trinity, Incarnation of Christ, the authority of Scripture, salvation by faith alone, the priesthood of believers, an ordained ministry, baptism, and observance of the Lord’s Supper

all held together by the importance of immersion baptism, religious freedom in relation to the State, and a congregational form of church government.

That’s all you really need to be a Baptist.

For example the Southern a Baptist Convention. The individual church could leave and join another group at some point but would no longer be “southern baptist” or “american baptist” or a number of others.

It may not be part of that particular convention; however, merely leaving a Baptist convention or association would not entail giving up its Baptist identity. If “First Baptist Church of Somewhereville,” chose by majority vote of its membership to leave the Southern Baptist Convention it would still remain “First Baptist Church of Somewhereville” in name and practice provided it continued to to what Baptists have always done.

Evangelical churches , in general can be free or non denominational, or part of the EFCA or not and be called evangelical.

And so can Baptists. I don’t understand the point you are making.

 

[Jon_S_1]

No they do not. To be a Baptist a church need only subscribe to the historical Baptist tenants, which are basically those of classical Protestantism

the Trinity, Incarnation of Christ, the authority of Scripture, salvation by faith alone, the priesthood of believers, an ordained ministry, baptism, and observance of the Lord’s Supper

all held together by the importance of immersion baptism, religious freedom in relation to the State, and a congregational form of church government.

That’s all you really need to be a Baptist.

It may not be part of that particular convention; however, merely leaving a Baptist convention or association would not entail giving up its Baptist identity. If “First Baptist Church of Somewhereville,” chose by majority vote of its membership to leave the Southern Baptist Convention it would still remain “First Baptist Church of Somewhereville” in name and practice provided it continued to to what Baptists have always done.

And so can Baptists. I don’t understand the point you are making.

Perhaps my view is off because I was part of an Evangelical Free Church and I don’t have experience in other types of evangelical churches.

The Baptist church I belonged to was when I was a kid, although I have a lot of family in baptist churches so I could be mistaken but I think we are just missing each other more than anything.

Here’s an example. Your First Baptist a Church of whereversville starts teaching infant baptism. They are part of the southern baptist convention. The convention finds out and tells them they cannot be part of the convention or any baptist denomination as long as they teach that.

If they continued to be called baptist then it would be a farce, just as if an excommunicated priest started St whoever a Catholic Church.

Now with Evangelicalism (at least EV Free) they would be able to make this change since they are “free” and the only oversight would be at the church level. There is no one there to say, "That’s not a true evangelical church " As it is many many evangelical churches have no affiliation whatsoever and encompass a huge range of beliefs.

On a side note I am well aware of the cross pollinating and blending between baptists and evangelicals over the last 200 years.

I would say my flavor of evangelicalism was more of a baptist offshoot of the last 70 years.

 

[ltwin]

Perhaps my view is off because I was part of an Evangelical Free Church and I don’t have experience in other types of evangelical churches.

The Baptist church I belonged to was when I was a kid, although I have a lot of family in baptist churches so I could be mistaken but I think we are just missing each other more than anything.

That’s possible.

Here’s an example. Your First Baptist a Church of whereversville starts teaching infant baptism. They are part of the southern baptist convention. The convention finds out and tells them they cannot be part of the convention or any baptist denomination as long as they teach that.

If they continued to be called baptist then it would be a farce, just as if an excommunicated priest started St whoever a Catholic Church.

Yeah, it would be a farce. Notice I said, “it would still remain ‘First Baptist Church of Somewhereville’ in name and practice provided it continued to to what Baptists have always done.” If it started practicing infant baptism, then it definitely would no longer be Baptists unless you open up “Baptist” to be almost anything. However, most likely, if a Baptist church were to adopt infant baptism, it would change its name to something different, like “Community Church” or something. Believers’ baptism is so integral to being Baptist that if such a change were to happen I can’t see that church trying to continue to call themselves Baptists.

Now with Evangelicalism (at least EV Free) they would be able to make this change since they are “free” and the only oversight would be at the church level. There is no one there to say, "That’s not a true evangelical church " As it is many many evangelical churches have no affiliation whatsoever and encompass a huge range of beliefs.

But this is because of the unique history of the E-Free Church. Other Evangelical churches can and do demand greater uniformity in doctrine and practice.

On a side note I am well aware of the cross pollinating and blending between baptists and evangelicals over the last 200 years.

I would say my flavor of evangelicalism was more of a baptist offshoot of the last 70 years.

The point I’m making is that “Evangelicalism” is not determined by having “Evangelical” in the name. Just because the E-Free Church has “Evangelical” in the name does not mean it’s the benchmark test for Evangelicalism. Baptists are just as Evangelical as the E-Freeers are.

 

[Jon_S_1]

ltwin;:

The point I’m making is that “Evangelicalism” is not determined by having “Evangelical” in the name. Just because the E-Free Church has “Evangelical” in the name does not mean it’s the benchmark test for Evangelicalism. Baptists are just as Evangelical as the E-Freeers are.

And many Catholics are just as evangelical as E Freers !

It’s interesting that when Dr Beckwith converted to Catholicism, as head of the Evangelical
Theological Society, he was able to seriously consider (at least on paper)whether one could be catholic and evangelical.

Of course the answer is yes in theory, but you probably can’t be head of an Evangelical theological association practically and be Catholic since there are some dividing lines.

 

[ltwin]

And many Catholics are just as evangelical as E Freers !

It’s interesting that when Dr Beckwith converted to Catholicism, as head of the Evangelical
Theological Society, he was able to seriously consider (at least on paper)whether one could be catholic and evangelical.

Of course the answer is yes in theory, but you probably can’t be head of an Evangelical theological association practically and be Catholic since there are some dividing lines.

I have trouble saying that you can be both an Evangelical and a Catholic. To be Evangelical, as in Evangelicalism, is to at least believe in the central tenants of the Protestant Reformation. I agree that there can be Catholics who have a lot of affinity with Evangelicalism and that there are Evangelicals who have affinity with Catholicism. However, to be an “Evangelical Catholic” or a “Catholic Evangelical” would by necessity be fundamentally different than an Evangelical Protestant.

Just to illustrate that Baptists are Evangelicals, the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, edited by Randall Balmer and published by Baylor University Press, has entries for American Baptist Churches USA, Baptist Bible Fellowship, Baptist General Conference, Baptist General Conference of Canada, Baptist World Alliance, National Baptist Convention USA Inc., and the Southern Baptist Convention.

And those are just the easy ones that I knew to look for. Note, the Baptist World Alliance isn’t a denomination but an international fellowship of a large number of Baptist conventions/denominations.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I have trouble saying that you can be both an Evangelical and a Catholic. To be Evangelical, as in Evangelicalism, is to at least believe in the central tenants of the Protestant Reformation. I agree that there can be Catholics who have a lot of affinity with Evangelicalism and that there are Evangelicals who have affinity with Catholicism. However, to be an “Evangelical Catholic” or a “Catholic Evangelical” would by necessity be fundamentally different than an Evangelical Protestant.

Just to illustrate that Baptists are Evangelicals, the Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism, edited by Randall Balmer and published by Baylor University Press, has entries for American Baptist Churches USA, Baptist Bible Fellowship, Baptist General Conference, Baptist General Conference of Canada, Baptist World Alliance, National Baptist Convention USA Inc., and the Southern Baptist Convention.

And those are just the easy ones that I knew to look for. Note, the Baptist World Alliance isn’t a denomination but an international fellowship of a large number of Baptist conventions/denominations.

There are also Presbyterians that are evangelical. Tim Keller for example.

This was what I meant by less structured. It’s a lot easier to place a baptist or a Presbyterian or a Nazarene , etc but all those groups may or may not be considered evangelical depending on the church.

Right?

I think this sums up the point I was trying to make. (Yes Wikipedia)

“While some conservative Evangelicals[which?] believe the label has broadened too much beyond its more limiting traditional distinctives, this trend is nonetheless strong enough to create significant ambiguity in the term.[17] As a result, the dichotomy between “Evangelical” and “mainline” denominations is increasingly complex, particularly with such innovations as the “emergent church” movement.”

 

[EvangelCatholic]

I have trouble saying that you can be both an Evangelical and a Catholic. To be Evangelical, as in Evangelicalism, is to at least believe in the central tenants of the Protestant Reformation. I agree that there can be Catholics who have a lot of affinity with Evangelicalism and that there are Evangelicals who have affinity with Catholicism. **However, to be an “Evangelical Catholic” or a “Catholic Evangelical” would by necessity be fundamentally different than an Evangelical Protestant. **

An Evangelical Catholic is a Lutheran! We also consider ourselves Evangelicals.

 

[ltwin]

An Evangelical Catholic is a Lutheran! We also consider ourselves Evangelicals.

Yes, that’s the “classical” definition of Evangelical. Luther didn’t want his followers named after him. He called himself and his followers Evangelicals, because through their teachings the Gospel, the evangelion, had been recovered. Besides Lutherans, the Reformed Churches also called themselves Evangelicals. So, in the classical use of the word, “Evangelical” was used as a general term for all Protestants. It was only later that the term “Evangelicalism” became associated with a distinct brand of Protestantism.

 

[ltwin]

There are also Presbyterians that are evangelical. Tim Keller for example.

This was what I meant by less structured. It’s a lot easier to place a baptist or a Presbyterian or a Nazarene , etc but all those groups may or may not be considered evangelical depending on the church.

Right?

That depends. The Nazarene Church would not tolerate non-evangelical teaching. While the Presbyterian Church USA (which is mainline and at least at the national level hostile to orthodox Christianity) “tolerates” evangelical Presbyterians, other Presbyterian denominations are solidly evangelical and will not tolerate liberalism. One such denomination is the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. Likewise, most Baptist churches that despise evangelical teachings already left the Southern Baptist Convention during the Conservative Resurgence/Fundamentalist Takeover of that denomination in the 1970s/1980s.

I think this sums up the point I was trying to make. (Yes Wikipedia)

“While some conservative Evangelicals[which?] believe the label has broadened too much beyond its more limiting traditional distinctives, this trend is nonetheless strong enough to create significant ambiguity in the term.[17] As a result, the dichotomy between “Evangelical” and “mainline” denominations is increasingly complex, particularly with such innovations as the “emergent church” movement.”

Yes, Evangelicalism is diverse. And there are Evangelicals who attempt to “stretch” the meaning, such as Christians who appear to be closer to liberal Protestantism on certain issues. However, the acknowledgment that there are fringe groups who exist on the margins of Evangelicalism and often blurr the lines somewhate (such as Fundamentalists and liberal Protestants) does not negate the existence of an Evangelical consensus that has existed in this country since at least the 1940s.

This consensus is called Neo-Evangelicalism. This consensus is brought about by the cooperation of a variety of evangelical movements as diverse and different as Reformed and Wesleyan orientations. However, all are united by a Protestant theology that is grounded in Scripture. The most famous neo-evangelical is probably Billy Graham.

 

[josie_L]

Well, you could have had that discussion with the early Church as well, since the same diversity of practice existed then

Now if they rebaptize people, that’s a whole different ballgame.

Edwin

Well, the person who asked me to be baptized did not see it as re-baptism, I, on the other hand tried to make him understand that it would be.

 

[Cat]

Jon, I hope this doesn’t come across as rude, but both your statements are mistaken.

Some Baptist groups are Fundamentalists, but many are Evangelicals.

Evangelicals can be in found in churches with the whole spectrum of types of church structure.

Right!

Billy Graham is a Baptist! So was Chuck Colson (RIP).

 

[Cat]

The best way to learn about Evangelicalism is to check out the National Association of Evangelicals.

Here is the current list of member denominations: nae.net/membership/current-members

As you can see, several denominations of Baptists! What I don’t see is the Southern Baptist Convention, but perhaps they are under the umbrella of one of those other groups of Baptists listed.

I know that in recent years, various denominations have withdrawn their membership from the NAE because of the big sex scandal. I can’t say I blame them.

And other denominations have withdrawn their membership because they prefer to be totally autonomous and keep all of their offering monies for use in their own church. I can understand that, although my unique experiences with the Evangelical Free Church in America have led me to be utterly opposed to autonomous churches. (Our family was ousted from an Evangelical Free Church in America, and it was a horrific experience.)

And finally, as others on this thread have mentioned, the “Fundamentalist” denoms don’t have a huge presence in the NAE. That’s because many of these denoms are “separatists” and do not mix either in religious causes (e.g., anti-abortion activities) or in social settings with people who are not part of their denominations or churches. Many of these denoms would consider the NAE “liberal”.

And here is the Statement of Faith of the National Association of Evangelicals:

---

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of damnation.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ.

---

I don’t know what the rest of you think, but I think it’s entirely possible that the Catholic Church could eventually be a “member” of the NAE! I see nothing in this statement that is contradictory to Catholic dogma. The statement about the Bible is perhaps the most troubling and would have to be clarified.

Another resource for people who are looking to understand Evangelicalism is Christianity Today. In the last few months, the magazine has changed its physical image, and I’m not real thrilled with it (too much hashtagging for me). I’ve subscribed to CT for years, and the magazine consistently includes Catholics and Orthodox whenever listing “Christian” churches. I like that!

 

[ltwin]

As you can see, several denominations of Baptists! What I don’t see is the Southern Baptist Convention, but perhaps they are under the umbrella of one of those other groups of Baptists listed.

The Southern Baptists aren’t members, and I don’t think they ever have been. It seems to me that the SBC is very reluctant to join these types of larger organizations. Years ago they left the World Baptist Alliance (they were the largest member denom) because they complained that it was trending liberal.

 

[Cat]

The Southern Baptists aren’t members, and I don’t think they ever have been. It seems to me that the SBC is very reluctant to join these types of larger organizations. Years ago they left the World Baptist Alliance (they were the largest member denom) because they complained that it was trending liberal.

Ah, I see.

My husband and I lived in the South, and were members of a Southern Baptist church for a little over a year.

We ended up leaving because we felt that the church was too liberal. Figure that one out!

From what we saw, there is a huge diversity among Southern Baptist churches. One of the Southern Baptist churches in our city was a stronghold for pro-choice groups, and the pastor of that church regularly made appearances for groups like NARAL. That same church also allowed the local Wiccan group to use the church building for their weekly “services” (I apologize that I don’t know what the Wiccans call their gatherings.)

But other Southern Baptist churches in the city were extremely conservative socially and theologically.