What is the difference between Southern Baptists and Non-Denominational christians?

[Protoman2050]

Independent Fundamental Baptists are psychopaths who through their actions and words, believe Christ’s life, death, and resurrection never happened.

I had to sit through their vitriolic caterwauling and divisiveness for my entire life. Now I’m in a much better Reformed Baptist church, where I feel loved and cared for. I am beginning to reject Protestanism’s rejection of tradition and making church, esp. communion, feel like a business meeting.

And I am considering converting to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Peruse stufffundieslike.com to see the extent of their madness.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Besides difference in name, is there anything different about these two denominations like ideas, practices, etc.?

My friend who is a Southern Baptist likes to go to a Non-denominational church and I asked him if he found any difference between them and his reply was, “not really.” Although the people who started this non-denominational church were formerly Southern Baptists.

“The term “Southern Baptist Convention” refers to both the convention and its annual meeting. Working through 1,175 local associations and 42 state conventions, Southern Baptists share a common bond of basic Biblical beliefs and a commitment to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the entire world.” Link; sbc.net/aboutus/default.asp

Southern Baptists are expected to adhere to The Baptist Faith and Message. Link: sbc.net/bfm/bfm2000.asp#i

By leaving the SBC, nondenominational Churches are not bound by The Baptist Faith and Message; and their teachings, though similar to SB, differ in some areas. Also, some believe the name “Southern Baptist” may hinder their mission to spread the Gospel, due to the history of the formation of the Southern Baptist Convention.

 

[robwar]

I understand why Pentecostals would want to downplay their Pentecostalism. I’ve been embarrassed by things that I’ve seen in my church, even though when the Spirit comes upon me I might do the very same thing and not feel anything but thankfulness to God. However, when I see other people do it, I get self-conscious especially if we have visitors. I also realize that alot of Pentecostals were born into the Pentecostal church and agree with its evangelical doctrine, but hasn’t necessarily received the Pentecostal experience and they don’t want the Pentecostal experience in their church to be honest.

What I don’t get are charismatic (as in non-Pentecostal) evangelical churches, which did not inherit a Pentecostal tradition but purposely claimed the identity of charismatic for themselves. I don’t get why they insist on being labeled charismatic when they are no different from the non-charismatic evangelical church down the street. You aren’t bound by doctrinal or organizational or historical ties to Pentecostalism. You are free to choose any evangelical label to describe yourself, yet you choose to be labeled charismatic. It’s pretty hard to be charismatic when there is a serious lack of the charismata.

Having been in a couple of Charismatic churches before coming home to the Catholic church I might have some insight. Many of the Charismatic churches that formed in the later 60 and 70 were formed by groups of individuals that experienced the baptism of the Holy spirit in their respective mainline Protestant groups. They tried to stay actually within their previous churches only to run in problems and controversy which resulted in them being kicked out or just leaving. Many saw themselves as inheriting the mantel of the 1901 pentecostal revival which a number of them would see as falling into different errors such as the oneness movement or holiness movement. The one church I went to was run by a former Baptist pastor who was kicked out of his Baptist group since they considered the charismatic movement a heresy. So yes many independent Charismatic churches would have a Baptist view and theology since many of them came from different Baptists groups. Also, I ran into many ex-Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists (me) etc etc.
The Charismatic churches I knew would have seen themselves under a new revival of the 1901 original. The Catholic Charismatic movement also started during this time but unlike some of the others, they stayed true and within the Catholic Church and weren’t forced to leave.
It’s sort of like the whole “Community Church” label. We’re really Baptists, but we don’t wont anyone to know it.

 

[JustaServant]

Independent Fundamental Baptists are psychopaths who through their actions and words, believe Christ’s life, death, and resurrection never happened.

I had to sit through their vitriolic caterwauling and divisiveness for my entire life. Now I’m in a much better Reformed Baptist church, where I feel loved and cared for. I am beginning to reject Protestanism’s rejection of tradition and making church, esp. communion, feel like a business meeting.

And I am considering converting to the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Peruse stufffundieslike.com to see the extent of their madness.

There are different kinds of IFBs.

***1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety. ***
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most “reasonable” kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

2. The Bob Jones University variety.
They range from Calvinist to Arminian in theology. They tend to be more intellectual, but very elitist and racist. Their numbers are dwindling however, Two pastors I sat under were from BJU.

3. The Hyles-Anderson College, KJV-only variety.
These are the wide-eyed fanatics. These are the haters. Very anti-intellectual, cultic, abrasive, paranoid…I could go on, but you get the picture. The third group I have encountered, even preached in a few of their churches, but I avoided them.

All three Falwell, Jones, and Hyles are gone now. But their legacy continues. All three are little islands to themselves. They put up walls so no opposite POV comes in.
Fortuntely, IFBs are a dying breed. The number of people in thier churches rarely are in the triple digets. Most are a small handful of people.
The reason why is obvious: thier doctrine of separation. They separate, not just from all those ‘apostate denominations’, but from each other as well.
When one is born of division, all that can be produced is more division. They will continue to ‘separate’ and divide until they are no more.

 

[ltwin]

Seems mine and robwar’s comments got mixed up. Just to be clear, this was the comment I made:

I understand why Pentecostals would want to downplay their Pentecostalism. I’ve been embarrassed by things that I’ve seen in my church, even though when the Spirit comes upon me I might do the very same thing and not feel anything but thankfulness to God. However, when I see other people do it, I get self-conscious especially if we have visitors. I also realize that alot of Pentecostals were born into the Pentecostal church and agree with its evangelical doctrine, but hasn’t necessarily received the Pentecostal experience and they don’t want the Pentecostal experience in their church to be honest.

What I don’t get are charismatic (as in non-Pentecostal) evangelical churches, which did not inherit a Pentecostal tradition but purposely claimed the identity of charismatic for themselves. I don’t get why they insist on being labeled charismatic when they are no different from the non-charismatic evangelical church down the street. You aren’t bound by doctrinal or organizational or historical ties to Pentecostalism. You are free to choose any evangelical label to describe yourself, yet you choose to be labeled charismatic. It’s pretty hard to be charismatic when there is a serious lack of the charismata.

It’s sort of like the whole “Community Church” label. We’re really Baptists, but we don’t wont anyone to know it.

And this is robwar’s response:

Having been in a couple of Charismatic churches before coming home to the Catholic church I might have some insight. Many of the Charismatic churches that formed in the later 60 and 70 were formed by groups of individuals that experienced the baptism of the Holy spirit in their respective mainline Protestant groups. They tried to stay actually within their previous churches only to run in problems and controversy which resulted in them being kicked out or just leaving. Many saw themselves as inheriting the mantel of the 1901 pentecostal revival which a number of them would see as falling into different errors such as the oneness movement or holiness movement. The one church I went to was run by a former Baptist pastor who was kicked out of his Baptist group since they considered the charismatic movement a heresy. So yes many independent Charismatic churches would have a Baptist view and theology since many of them came from different Baptists groups. Also, I ran into many ex-Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists (me) etc etc.
The Charismatic churches I knew would have seen themselves under a new revival of the 1901 original. The Catholic Charismatic movement also started during this time but unlike some of the others, they stayed true and within the Catholic Church and weren’t forced to leave.

Robwar, I read an article about SBC Baptist churches that adopted charismatic beliefs and practices in the 2000s being kicked out of their local Baptist associations. While I’m not sure if this meant they were out of their state and the national convention, I would assume that churches being kicked out of their local associations would probably prefer to go non-denominational.

 

[Protoman2050]

There are different kinds of IFBs.

***1. The Jerry Falwel, Liberty University variety. ***
I attended LU and can safely say they are the most “reasonable” kind (that may shock some people). They would fit into the " ‘New Evangelicals’ Billy Graham, Charles Colson, James Dobson" types. Hard-core fundamentalists do not consider them to be fundamentalists (for a variety of reasons I will not bore you with explaining, not the least of which is that they (GASP) use modern english versions of the Bible.

2. The Bob Jones University variety.
They range from Calvinist to Arminian in theology. They tend to be more intellectual, but very elitist and racist. Their numbers are dwindling however, Two pastors I sat under were from BJU.

3. The Hyles-Anderson College, KJV-only variety.
These are the wide-eyed fanatics. These are the haters. Very anti-intellectual, cultic, abrasive, paranoid…I could go on, but you get the picture. The third group I have encountered, even preached in a few of their churches, but I avoided them.

All three Falwell, Jones, and Hyles are gone now. But their legacy continues. All three are little islands to themselves. They put up walls so no opposite POV comes in.
Fortuntely, IFBs are a dying breed. The number of people in thier churches rarely are in the triple digets. Most are a small handful of people.
The reason why is obvious: thier doctrine of separation. They separate, not just from all those ‘apostate denominations’, but from each other as well.
When one is born of division, all that can be produced is more division. They will continue to ‘separate’ and divide until they are no more.

I know. Whatever happened to 1 Pet 3:8?! And Jn 13:35!

 

[robwar]

I know. Whatever happened to 1 Pet 3:8?! And Jn 13:35!

What about Bill Gothard and Gothardism and the Quiver full movement?

 

[robwar]

Robwar, I read an article about SBC Baptist churches that adopted charismatic beliefs and practices in the 2000s being kicked out of their local Baptist associations. While I’m not sure if this meant they were out of their state and the national convention, I would assume that churches being kicked out of their local associations would probably prefer to go non-denominational.

Itwin,
sorry about that! I am still learning about quoting!
Yes, this is what I saw in the late 70’s and that is why there was such a rise in Independent Charismatic Churches. That is what happen with the one I attended back then. I don’t remember which Baptist group that Pastor was with but basically the whole Church followed that Pastor. Back then the Charismatic movement was much more controversial and considered a heresy by many mainline and Baptist/evangelical/fundamental Churches. but this also explains why this Churches would seem Baptist since many came from Baptist views and theology. I am very happy to be Catholic in the one true Apostolic Church founded by Christ and with the magisterium teaching authority. The trouble with independent Churches is that the are open to “every wind of Doctrine” there is no control or filter on the teaching and stuff that is out there and a lot of it is heresy and dangerous. The magisterium and teaching authority of the Catholic Church is such a protection. Imprimiturs mean something.

 

[Izdaari]

This is very true. “Community Church” out here tends to mean “Baptist Church but we don’t want to call ourselves that.”

It can also mean “Assemblies of God but we don’t want to call ourselves that.” That was my previous church.

 

[Izdaari]

That’s interesting. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you are saying that the emerging churches are into Luther and Calvin.

The emerging churches that I have seen lean more towards Catholicism and traditional Catholic practices rather than away from Catholicism.

The emerging churches in our city do lectio divina, Latin, chant (Gregorian and other), candles, confession, and silence. They also encourage their members to do a lot of reading of the Early Church Fathers and the saints.

In fact, other evangelical Protestant churches in the city “protest” these emerging churches, and “warn” Christians that they can be put on the “road to Rome” if they attend emerging churches and immerse themselves in the “Catholic” practices.

I certainly think that’s possible, but I also think that a lot of the emerging church attendees are just as likely to walk away from Christianity and head off towards New Age groups and practices; e.g., labyrinth walking, crystals, dianetics, Reiki, different yoga philosophies, meditation, white magic, Eastern religions, various occult practices (spiritualism, soul travel, magik, etc.).

My new Episcopal/Lutheran (both TEC & ELCA) church describes itself as “emerging Anglo-Catholic” with Benedictine influence, and I’m cool with that. Perfect for me since I’ve been Anglican and Lutheran in theology all along, and “emerging” for years. I cannot be actual Catholic due to irreconcilable doctrinal differences, but I don’t at all mind being similar. If people tell me our practice is an awful lot like Rome’s, I’ll just smile and say “That’s right.”

But I’ve seen no hint of any New Age practices at this church, nor have I ever known any other “emerging church” people to be into them.

 

[Anna_Scott]

That’s interesting. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you, but it sounds like you are saying that the emerging churches are into Luther and Calvin.

The emerging churches that I have seen lean more towards Catholicism and traditional Catholic practices rather than away from Catholicism.

The emerging churches in our city do lectio divina, Latin, chant (Gregorian and other), candles, confession, and silence. They also encourage their members to do a lot of reading of the Early Church Fathers and the saints.

In fact, other evangelical Protestant churches in the city “protest” these emerging churches, and “warn” Christians that they can be put on the “road to Rome” if they attend emerging churches and immerse themselves in the “Catholic” practices.

I certainly think that’s possible, but I also think that a lot of the emerging church attendees are just as likely to walk away from Christianity and head off towards New Age groups and practices; e.g., labyrinth walking, crystals, dianetics, Reiki, different yoga philosophies, meditation, white magic, Eastern religions, various occult practices (spiritualism, soul travel, magik, etc.). . . .

Cat,
What support can you provide for your thinking emerging church attendees are likely to head toward New Age groups?

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

My new Episcopal/Lutheran (both TEC & ELCA) church describes itself as “emerging Anglo-Catholic” with Benedictine influence, and I’m cool with that. Perfect for me since I’ve been Anglican and Lutheran in theology all along, and “emerging” for years. I cannot be actual Catholic due to irreconcilable doctrinal differences, but I don’t at all mind being similar. If people tell me our practice is an awful lot like Rome’s, I’ll just smile and say “That’s right.”

But I’ve seen no hint of any New Age practices at this church, nor have I ever known any other “emerging church” people to be into them.

Izdaari,
There is no hint of New Age practices in our Anglo Catholic Parish either; and like you, I don’t mind people saying we are like Catholics in Communion with Rome. When I left the SBC, I told one of my Baptist friends I was attending the Episcopal Church. The first thing she said was, “Aren’t they like Catholics?”

Anna

 

[Izdaari]

Izdaari,
There is no hint of New Age practices in our Anglo Catholic Parish either; and like you, I don’t mind people saying we are like Catholics in Communion with Rome. When I left the SBC, I told one of my Baptist friends I was attending the Episcopal Church. The first thing she said was, “Aren’t they like Catholics?”

Anna

Why, yes, quite like Catholics.

But not in the areas where I can’t agree with Rome.

 

[Izdaari]

Cat,
What support can you provide for your thinking emerging church attendees are likely to head toward New Age groups?

Anna

I’m curious about that too. I don’t see how liking the ideas of such authors as Brian McLaren, Rob Bell and Donald Miller has any connection to New Age anything. There is some connection with postmodern philosophy, but that is an academic, not a New Age, trend. Otherwise, those authors draw mainly on orthodox Christian sources, particularly the early church fathers, mystics and monastics, from the Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox traditions.

 

[Protoman2050]

What about Bill Gothard and Gothardism and the Quiver full movement?

They make me want to vomit. You could write a doctoral thesis on just how they are un-biblical and misogynist.

 

[Izdaari]

They make me want to vomit. You could write a doctoral thesis on just how they are un-biblical and misogynist.

Agreed. And perhaps I will do my doctoral thesis on that, assuming I make it that far, and someone doesn’t beat me to it.

 

[Cat]

What about Bill Gothard and Gothardism and the Quiver full movement?

Gothardism has wrecked a lot of Christians. This teaching seriously hurt one of my best friends. Her faith survived, but it was touch and go.

 

[robwar]

Gothardism has wrecked a lot of Christians. This teaching seriously hurt one of my best friends. Her faith survived, but it was touch and go.

I totally agree with you since I did attend his seminars in the 80’s. He has had a hugh influence and any conversation about different fundamentalism would be incomplete withou mentioning him.

 

[robwar]

They make me want to vomit. You could write a doctoral thesis on just how they are un-biblical and misogynist.

I take it that you also might be an alumni of his seminars. I hope that you are thinking of becoming Catholic. You will find healing from your experiences with fundamentalism. Your experiences demonstrate what heresy and following it does to people and why heresies are dangerous. You had a link in one of your posts to a web site that talks about the problems of fundamentalism. Such site can perpetuate anger and bitterness in those that have suffered.
There will be more healing in focusing on moving forward like you are doing now and using your bad experiences to expose and warn others. It seems like you have a lot to share.
God Bless you.

 

[Protoman2050]

I take it that you also might be an alumni of his seminars. I hope that you are thinking of becoming Catholic. You will find healing from your experiences with fundamentalism. Your experiences demonstrate what heresy and following it does to people and why heresies are dangerous. You had a link in one of your posts to a web site that talks about the problems of fundamentalism. Such site can perpetuate anger and bitterness in those that have suffered.
There will be more healing in focusing on moving forward like you are doing now and using your bad experiences to expose and warn others. It seems like you have a lot to share.
God Bless you.

Actually no, I’ve never been under his teaching. LOL, I’m only in my early 20s.

Basically, in my old church I was violently accused of apostasy for my slightly un-orthodox want for my relationship between me and my future mate when we were asked a question about the topic in youth group. I said that you should treat your wife like a cherished pet, your forever companion, someone to take care of and share everything with. Odd way of expressing a noble concept? Yes. Sinful? No. Apostasy? Absolutely no.

I was prayed over and anointed in a passive-aggressive manner, the pastor hounded me, lied to my parents, etc.

I’m finding healing through my current Reformed Baptist church I’m attending in Leeds while studying, and I’m being led to the Eastern Orthodox Church, as I no longer agree with Western Christianity’s Augustinian hamartiology after studying Sacred Scripture and the Church Fathers.

Funny enough, my friends at my current church, including the college ministry leader and trainee pastor, don’t seem to be all that upset about the beginning of me converting away from what they believe, they just want me to become closer to Christ, whatever version of Christianity that comes from. They hope my meeting with the Hieromonk who serves the University chaplaincy will be a blessing to my faith in Christ.

Great people. British Baptists are way kinder and smarter than the American version I’ve had the unfortunate opportunity of dealing with.