Is the SBC really Baptist?

[pilgrim_99]

I just ran across an article that reminded me of this particular thread. The author writes to address the controversy within the SBC by demonstrating a relationship between the arguments to undercurrents that have existed within the SBC and manifested within their struggles with Campbellism, Landmarkism and hyper-Calvinism in the nineteenth century.

“Baptists of the nineteenth century rejected Campbell’s strong anti-confessionalism. In the early part of the twentieth century, however, the ideal of American individualism was wedded to the Baptist concept of ‘soul competency’ resulting in the triumph of what Ralph Waldo Emerson called ‘the infinitude of the private mind.’ Many contemporary Baptists would be surprised to learn that venerable shapers of the Baptist tradition such as Andrew Fuller, Richard Furman, B.H. Carroll, and even E.Y. Mullins often spoke in an affirming way of ‘the Baptist creed,” For example, in 1923 Mullins, the champion of ‘soul liberty,’ outlined various basic Christian beliefs (e.g., biblical inspiration, the miracles of Christ, his vicarious atonement, bodily resurrection, literal ascension, and final return) and declared before the SBC: ‘We believe that adherence to the above truths and facts is a necessary condition of service for teachers in our Baptist schools.”

Source: Timothy George, “Southern Baptist Ghosts,” First Things: A Monthly Journal of Religion & Public Life no. 93 (May 1999): 18-24, 20.

Absolutely! I was going to post about this earlier, but you beat me to it. "No Creed But the Bible!!!" is the battle cry of the Campbellites. But it was adopted by the "moderates" (and the liberals--often they are one and the same) in the 20th Century.

Here is what one of the giants of SBC history had to say about this mentality:

There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied.

The modern cry, ‘Less creed and more liberty,’ is a degeneration from the vertebrate to the jelly fish, and means less unity and less morality, and it means more heresy. …It is a positive and very hurtful sin to magnify liberty at the expense of doctrine.
—B.H. Carroll

Well, I guess B.H. Carroll wasn't an authentic Southern Baptist if the assertions of at least one of the posters here is to be belived!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Absolutely! I was going to post about this earlier, but you beat me to it. "No Creed But the Bible!!!" is the battle cry of the Campbellites. But it was adopted by the "moderates" (and the liberals--often they are one and the same) in the 20th Century.

Here is what one of the giants of SBC history had to say about this mentality:



Well, I guess B.H. Carroll wasn't an authentic Southern Baptist if the assertions of at least one of the posters here is to be belived!

I hope you are not referring to me. But if you were, I'll correct your misunderstanding. The traditional Baptist position is not so much against creeds as it is against the imposition of a creed from any person or any group of people. Soul competency affirms the right of every individual Baptist to write his or her own creed, based on his/her reading of the scriptures, as led by the Holy Spirit.

 

[mandym]

I hope you are not referring to me. But if you were, I'll correct your misunderstanding. The traditional Baptist position is not so much against creeds as it is against the imposition of a creed from any person or any group of people. Soul competency affirms the right of every individual Baptist to write his or her own creed, based on his/her reading of the scriptures, as led by the Holy Spirit.

The problem is the way the left wing applies this is wrong. It means anyone can claim to be Baptist and believe whatever in the world they want. (just so long as they believe in soul competency)

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The problem is the way the left wing applies this is wrong. It means anyone can claim to be Baptist and believe whatever in the world they want. (just so long as they believe in soul competency)

Quite wrong. I believe one would have to believe in the Baptist distinctives to be Baptist.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I find it very ironic that here I am, considering leaving the SBC because of its lack of adherence to Baptist distinctives, and going to another denomination that isn't Baptist -- and yet, in some ways agrees with some Baptist distinctives more than the SBC does. I believe there is more support for Bible freedom, soul freedom, and religious freedom in the Nazarene Church than in the SBC. One area where I thought this wasn't the case was with autonomy, but with what I've read on here about reverter clauses and Baptists supporting such, I'm thinking the Nazarenes have almost as much autonomy as the Baptists.

Anyway, it's ironic that I find myself having to defend Baptist distinctives against Baptists.

 

[JonC]

The problem is the way the left wing applies this is wrong. It means anyone can claim to be Baptist and believe whatever in the world they want. (just so long as they believe in soul competency)

I think that you are exactly right. Historically soul liberty was taken to mean, to an extent, “let the heretic be a heretic.” But not “let the heretic be a heretic, and if he comes to church lets not speak against his beliefs.” The SBC defines Soul Competency as the accountability of each person before God. Your family cannot save you. Neither can your church. Authorities can’t force belief or unbelief.

Baptists have historically supported the autonomy of the local church. Given that, should not doctrinal issues be decided by the local church? Is not the head of the local church Christ? The SBC doesn’t impose belief. Local churches choose to be Southern Baptist and they can choose to leave. But it appears that many here insist that the local Baptist church is mandated to adhere to what they consider Baptist distinctive in the manner that they interpret these distinctive to mean. In other words, the local church is no longer autonomous but is bound by another’s interpretation of historical Baptist doctrines rather than Scripture. Some views presented here of religious freedom within the local church cannot be termed as historically Baptist doctrine.

(There is a good point, though, that whatever element controls LifeWay and the seminaries also controls much of the materials that educate the local churches and the pastors that are chosen to serve – but this again is ultimately a responsibility of the local church not to be dependent on the SBC).

 

[12strings]

Nodak or Michael, I still don't understand what you are saying that the current SBC disagrees with in Soul competency/Soul Liberty. It sounds like many SBCers would agree in general with the idea, and I may be one of those, except I can't figure out exactly what you mean by it PRACTICALLY: Perhaps you can help me out by commenting on the following hypothetical examples:

1. Should a pastor stand up in his pulpit and say, This passage teaches _________________. For example, can he tell his congregation that John 1 teaches the eternality of the Son of God, or should he leave that to their individual interpretations? What if he is teaching about soul competency? Can he say, This passage teaches that each of you can interpret the bible for yourself, and do not need me to tell you what to believe? Can he make that assertion, or should he simply say, "some people believe this passage teaches soul liberty, and you will have to make your own determination?

2. If you find a good, Soul-Liberty Baptist church, and you have only been baptized as a infant, and believe that to have been your valid baptism; would they let you join thier "Baptist" Church?

3. Should the SBC have ANY statement of Beliefs that govern which churches can partner with them and vote on Convention matters?

4. Should a church have ANY basic doctrines that must be agreed with to join the church?

 

[pilgrim_99]

I find it very ironic that here I am, considering leaving the SBC because of its lack of adherence to Baptist distinctives, and going to another denomination that isn't Baptist -- and yet, in some ways agrees with some Baptist distinctives more than the SBC does. I believe there is more support for Bible freedom, soul freedom, and religious freedom in the Nazarene Church than in the SBC. One area where I thought this wasn't the case was with autonomy, but with what I've read on here about reverter clauses and Baptists supporting such, I'm thinking the Nazarenes have almost as much autonomy as the Baptists.

Anyway, it's ironic that I find myself having to defend Baptist distinctives against Baptists.

I'll note at the outset that I haven't read all of the posts in this thread. If any of them have specific information on reversion clauses, please direct me to that post or posts.

I'd be surprised if 1% of SBC churches have reversion clauses. Perhaps this is largely something that is seen with church plants that are still in mission status and thus supported financially by NAMB and/or maybe state convention dollars? (I'm not 100% sure how that works. Perhaps others could fill me in here. And given the controversy over the Acts 29 plants that nevertheless don't seem to have lost their property, (if they have any) it seems that even if some have reversion clauses that it isn't common.) The only kind of thing like that I've heard of is an individual donating land under the condition that a church remain in a particular denomination. (In that case it was Church of God.) And in that case, the land would revert to the original owner or his estate, not the SBC.

Can anyone name one example (preferably one that is verifiable online) of a Southern Baptist church building and property reverting to (or having ownership transferred to) any SBC entity without the church first voting to transfer ownership? I know that some SBC churches that have had to shut the doors due to no longer being viable have been converted to serving as the local Association office. Presumably this was some kind of donation as Assns. usually aren't going to go into debt and typically don't have that kind of cash.

With regard to that, ask the Nazarenes who owns their building. If they are like their cousins the Wesleyans, then the denomination owns it ultimately. I used to be a member of a congregation of The Wesleyan Church. A Wesleyan church can vote to become Baptist or independent or whatever but they have to hand over the keys to the denomination if they leave it. While they may not use the name, they also have the equivalent of Bishops (District Superintendents, IIRC) who, if I'm not mistaken, ultimately can fire the pastor without congregational input under certain circumstances.

If it's a traditional Nazarene church, go in there and question entire sanctification and conditional security and see what happens. While their practice is likely mostly baptistic, like all denominations descended from the Methodists, they also accept the validity of both paedobaptism and believer's baptism as well as sprinkling, pouring and immersion. Hmm...real Baptist distinctives there.

If your concept of "soul freedom" and "Bible freedom" includes accepting paedobaptism and sprinkling or pouring as valid Baptism, then your "Baptist distinctives" aren't the same ones that our Baptist forebears bled and died for. As others have noted, that kind of denial of Baptist distinctives is ultimately where the hyper-individualistic concept of "soul freedom" that you are advocating leads to.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I'll note at the outset that I haven't read all of the posts in this thread. If any of them have specific information on reversion clauses, please direct me to that post or posts.

I'd be surprised if 1% of SBC churches have reversion clauses. Perhaps this is largely something that is seen with church plants that are still in mission status? (I'm not 100% sure how that works. Perhaps others could fill me in here.) The only kind of thing like that I've heard of is an individual donating land under the condition that a church remain in a particular denomination. (In that case it was Church of God.) And in that case, the land would revert to the original owner or his estate, not the SBC.

Can anyone name one example (preferably one that is verifiable online) of a Southern Baptist church building and property reverting to (or having ownership transferred to) any SBC entity without the church first voting to transfer ownership? I know that some SBC churches that have had to shut the doors due to no longer being viable have been converted to serving as the local Association office. Presumably this was some kind of donation as Assns. usually aren't going to go into debt and typically don't have that kind of cash.

With regard to that, ask the Nazarenes who owns their building. If they are like their cousins the Wesleyans, then the denomination owns it ultimately. I used to be a member of a congregation of The Wesleyan Church. A Wesleyan church can vote to become Baptist or independent or whatever but they have to hand over the keys to the denomination if they leave it. While they may not use the name, they also have the equivalent of Bishops (District Superintendents, IIRC) who, if I'm not mistaken, ultimately can fire the pastor without congregational input under certain circumstances.

If it's a traditional Nazarene church, go in there and question entire sanctification and conditional security and see what happens. While their practice is likely mostly baptistic, like all denominations descended from the Methodists, they also accept the validity of both paedobaptism and believer's baptism as well as sprinkling, pouring and immersion. Hmm...real Baptist distinctives there.

If your concept of "soul freedom" and "Bible freedom" includes accepting paedobaptism and sprinkling or pouring as valid Baptism, then your "Baptist distinctives" aren't the same ones that our Baptist forebears bled and died for. As others have noted, that kind of denial of Baptist distinctives is ultimately where the hyper-individualistic concept of "soul freedom" that you are advocating ultimately leads to.

I am well aware of Nazarene polity and doctrine. The local church owns the property -- as long as it stays a Nazarene church. In effect, this is the same as the reversion clauses advocated by many Baptists on here.

Just to clarify a historical fact: The earliest Baptists in England didn't immerse. So, our Baptist forebears didn't bleed and die for a mode of baptism -- not in the beginning; they bled and died for church-state separation and religious freedom and believer's baptism.

In the Nazarene church, there are very diverse ideas about entire sanctification. I know what the Manual says, but it is always being revised, and there are some who want the word "entire", as regards sanctification, taken out. I believe like Professor Thomas Oord about this; I couldn't accept entire sanctification the way it has been traditionally taught, but I can believe sanctification like Oord believes it.

Anyway, I believe that in the areas of Bible freedom, soul freedom, and religious freedom, the Nazarene church is more "baptistic" than the SBC; maybe not in autonomy, but two out of three ain't bad.

 

[Jerome]

I'd be surprised if 1% of SBC churches have reversion clauses.

"Judge Orders 'Non-Cooperating' Church' to Return Property to State Convention, Baptist Press, August 17, 1982:

Reverter clauses are common across the Southern Baptist Convention

Also, SEBTS Professor Nathan Finn tells of state denominational operatives' overwhelming success in getting the clause inserted in existing churches' bylaws:

They also urged all BSCNC churches to amend their bylaws so that, in the event of a similar vote to disaffiliate, all the assets would remain with the minority who wished to remain SBC and BSCNC. Most churches complied.

And from the recent Episcopal case in Virginia:

Likewise, certain Baptist denominations use deeds providing that “n the event the entire membership of said Church should renounce these practices and doctrines [of missionary Baptists, as believed in and practiced by the Mount Vernon Baptist Association of Virginia, and the Southern Baptist Convention or their successors], or in case its house of worship and/or land upon which it is situated as above set forth, be abandoned or shall cease to be used as a house or place of Baptist worship, then all of the land and improvements thereon shall immediately revert to the Board of Trustees of Mount Vernon Baptist Association, LTD, its successor or assigns.” Apostles Ex. 330.0003 (deed) (emphasis added). And, outside of Virginia, Episcopal dioceses employ the same approach. Apostles Ex. 369.0015 (Article XI, § 1) (Diocese of West Missouri constitution).

—VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, In re: Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church, CANA CONGREGATIONS’ CORRECTED OPENING POST-TRIAL BRIEF

 

[Michael Wrenn]

"Judge Orders 'Non-Cooperating' Church' to Return Property to State Convention, Baptist Press, August 17, 1982:




Also, SEBTS Professor Nathan Finn tells of state denominational operatives' overwhelming success in getting the clause inserted in existing churches' bylaws:




And from the recent Episcopal case in Virginia:


—VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, In re: Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church, CANA CONGREGATIONS’ CORRECTED OPENING POST-TRIAL BRIEF

And if such clauses are common, then SBC churches are no more autonomous with regard to their property than are Nazarene churches.

 

[JonC]

Please let me know if I’m understanding these revision clauses correctly.

A local church self imposes these clauses for one reason or another. This is not something that is done at the SBC level, or at the state convention level, but by the local church. Some organizations at the state convention level require these clauses in order to receive funding to start up a SBC church
.
There are two reasons for these clauses. If I would like to have a SBC state organization provide funding for me to start a church, that organization may require a revision clause as a condition for funding. As a free-church, I may at any time reject SBC doctrine but it will be at the expense of physical property because that property is associated with the funding provided by a source outside of the local congregation to achieve a specific purpose.

Secondly, some churches may impose such a clause in order to prevent the church from changing its doctrine. The majority at the time may try to “lock in” a particular doctrinal stance while they are actually in control of the local church. But in the future they may become a minority. In this case, the revision clause could revert the ownership of the physical property to a minority within the local church body that held to the established doctrine.

The benefits seem to be the preservation of doctrine and the prevention of “church stealing.” The downside is that there is a high price to be paid for churches that receive funding to start a SBC church but then decides to reject SBC doctrine.

 

[nodak]

Pre 20th century who held to soul competency--start with Smith, Helwys, and Williams.

Soul competency has never meant that any individual is free to make up the rules on his or her own, believing whatever THEY WANT TO BELIEVE.

Rather, it affirms the RESPONSIBILITY of the believer to study the Scripture for him or herself, UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

How that used to work out practically is that if I say understand scripture to teach young earth creationism (I don't!), it would not matter if 14 conventions and 3 popes tried to enforce old earth creationism on me, I would be free to continue as a member of my church and speak of what I believe.

It doesn't happen that way today. We set parameters and set out to enforce them. Just look at what happened to missionaries who would not reveal how they pray, privately and silently. Those that may not have ever in their life prayed in tongues, who are strict cessationists, but who were convicted that their most intimate moments with the Lord were between them and the Lord, lost their jobs.

I heartily support ANY Baptist group's right to write up a statement that makes clear what most of them believe.

It is when they begin to name call, ridicule, or attempt to enforce that understanding on others that I part company.

 

[JonC]

The influence and result of Campbellism within the nineteenth century Baptist church (around the 1820’s) seems to indicate that soul competency did not include the freedom to continue within a church that represented opposing beliefs. Members were not expected to hold beliefs that were not truly their own, but they certainly were not expected to continue their membership in the local church if their beliefs were not represented by that church.

 

[pilgrim_99]

"Judge Orders 'Non-Cooperating' Church' to Return Property to State Convention, Baptist Press, August 17, 1982:




Also, SEBTS Professor Nathan Finn tells of state denominational operatives' overwhelming success in getting the clause inserted in existing churches' bylaws:




And from the recent Episcopal case in Virginia:


—VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR FAIRFAX COUNTY, In re: Multi-Circuit Episcopal Church, CANA CONGREGATIONS’ CORRECTED OPENING POST-TRIAL BRIEF

I hold no brief for the SBC. But did you happen to notice which faction it was that opposed the Baptist principle of autonomy in this case? Hint: It wasn't the conservatives! Also, is the 1982 Baptist Press article you cite online? If not, what is your source for it?

The Episcopal case has nothing to do with it as local congregations in hierarchical denominations typically do not own the property anyway. Nevertheless many congregations that vote to leave end up leaving with the property anyway.

 

[preachinjesus]

Pre 20th century who held to soul competency--start with Smith, Helwys, and Williams.

Well I'm not aware of a "Smith" but I suppose this could be Smythe (prounced smigh-th)

I mean this list is intriguing (and yes you could see some of soul liberty/comptency...I've only heard it referred to as comptency...in Roger Williams) but could you please list specific quotes and works.

Soul competency has never meant that any individual is free to make up the rules on his or her own, believing whatever THEY WANT TO BELIEVE.

Rather, it affirms the RESPONSIBILITY of the believer to study the Scripture for him or herself, UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

Again, what is the difference between your understanding of soul liberty/comptency and priesthood of all believers?

How that used to work out practically is that if I say understand scripture to teach young earth creationism (I don't!), it would not matter if 14 conventions and 3 popes tried to enforce old earth creationism on me, I would be free to continue as a member of my church and speak of what I believe.

I've said as much around here, particularly on this issue of the erroneous YEC beliefs. But I still don't see the difference between this and a properly defined (historical) priesthood of all beleivers.

It doesn't happen that way today. We set parameters and set out to enforce them. Just look at what happened to missionaries who would not reveal how they pray, privately and silently. Those that may not have ever in their life prayed in tongues, who are strict cessationists, but who were convicted that their most intimate moments with the Lord were between them and the Lord, lost their jobs.

Well the private prayer language thing is a difficult issue and hasn't gotten the attention from our churches that it should. However, again what is the difference between a convention employee and autonmous local church? I suggest that a lot of these issues are related to our desire to keep our agency employees (specifically missionaries and seminary professors) within appropriate boundaries theologically. Granted we have some folks in our leadership (now) who are going too far in their desire for doctrinally accountability. But that happens from time to time. We can, and should, always provide a corrective.

Ultimately, however, none of this means the SBC isn't Baptist. They are incredibly Baptist and thankfully Baptist.

 

[preachinjesus]

I have been gone most of the day, but I wanted to respond to a couple of things; see my responses, in red, in your post above.

I'm going to do my best to reply but it is difficult to reply to quotes inside the quotes boxes on this forum.

I'm saying that no one has the right to interpret scripture for another -- that's what is meant by Bible freedom and soul competency. You know, everybody believes their interpretation is led by the Holy Spirit and is right and every denomination believes it's interpretations are Spirit-led and right. We all see through a glass, darkly. But Baptists have traditionally believed that each individual is and should be free to interpret scripture for himself/herself.

So what happens when your interpretation of Scripture is wrong? And you're teaching it to a crowd?

What as -- janitors? Since Mullins was a strong proponent of soul competency, a principle which you and today's SBC have a problem with, how could Mullins possibly be accepted in the SBC of today?

Well at this point it is pure conjecture. Dr Hobbs was mentioned throughout the 90s and would have been part of the BFM revision in 2000 if he had been alive. But it is all conjecture because we simply can't know. The theological landscape is different these days.

 

[12strings]

How that used to work out practically is that if I say understand scripture to teach young earth creationism (I don't!), it would not matter if 14 conventions and 3 popes tried to enforce old earth creationism on me, I would be free to continue as a member of my church and speak of what I believe.

So, hypothetically, if you were convinced that you did not need to be baptized because you were sprinkled as an infant, is it your opinion that any REAL Baptist church should let you join anyway? Is this not pitting a baptist distinctive of soul competency against a baptist distinctive of BAPTISM?

 

[preachinjesus]

FTR, I challenge the extent and proliferation of so called "reversion" clauses.

I've never, never, never seen this kind of clause in any of the churches I've served while on staff or consulting. I've never heard it talked about in meetings. I've never seen it advocated anywhere.

If there are such clauses they aren't, absolutely aren't forced onto a church by the convention because the convention (national) has zero infrastructure or ability to enforce them.

I believe the revisionist discussion (and I said this in other thread) is dramatically overstated and has such little use that it is unhelpful for the overall conversation about the nature of autonomy in the SBC.

Those who are harping on them are overstating the case and unnecessarily bringing up issues that have no bearing on actual Southern Baptist life.

 

[Yeshua1]

The influence and result of Campbellism within the nineteenth century Baptist church (around the 1820’s) seems to indicate that soul competency did not include the freedom to continue within a church that represented opposing beliefs. Members were not expected to hold beliefs that were not truly their own, but they certainly were not expected to continue their membership in the local church if their beliefs were not represented by that church.

is the SBC trying to get their 'official" position as regarding salvation to be as a calvinist bent?

Seems trying to get such in their Seminaries...

Would that be an example of having a formal creed one must adhere to ?