WHY are Baptists So Fragmented?

Because the rest of you are all wrong, that's why!

 

Because Baptists have become followers of evey fadish trend that has come down the Evangelical or Fundamentalist pipe and have turn the Priesthood of all believers into the papacy of every believer. A re imbracing of Historic Baptist Confessions such as the 1689 Confession would be a good start. Will it happen? Doubtfull. American Baptists have been to influenced bad theology that masquerades as Baptist. Baptist work in the USA many be where England was in the 1800's. On the verge of a nose dive into apostasy.

 

Theology; jealousy; ethnicity, culture,& language; history; and geography. All of these (and others) have played major roles in fragmenting Baptists.

 

Baptists are so fragmented because of the following groups:

1. Cultic KJVOnlyists
2. Cultic Pretribulationists
3. Cultic Fundymentalists

Amen.

 

I can't speak for all but where I live and when I was a kid baptist were not trying to push their doctrine or bible doctrine as much as to fit in. We would read about a Hobbs, Vance Havner,W.A. Criswell,R.G.Lee or etc. but the Bill and John R. Rices and Oliver B. Green came in. So When I got saved and started studing His Word and believe the Holy Spirit lead me to a conviction in what I believe and I don't wish to compromise. I will fight for you to have the right to disagree with me but don't mess with my theology and I would think that is what most baptist believe, no matter what they believe. That could add up over the years.

 

Because Baptists have traditionally believed in soul competency and have refused to believe that divisions are sinful per se. Of course, some who claim to be Baptist disbelieve soul competency, preferring instead that everyone be like wind-up dolls that all do the same dance.

 

Too many "theologins" with the idea that his idea's were better than Gods word.

 

My experience has been that few people who claim to be Baptist know or desire to know theology, church history, Baptist distinctives, or even what their individual church believes on major doctrinal issues. Even fewer can present an adequate defense of any of the above.

I am an independent Baptist. I do not believe that the New Testament provides for an organization of churches above the local level. I would point to the destructive dissension within the SBC as well as Spurgeon's Downgrade as proof that higher organizations are not a good idea. I do believe that churches can and should voluntarily cooperate but only if complete liberty is maintained by all parties...in short, I am not disappointed that Baptists are 'fragmented' since I don't believe we should be organized under human terms in the first place.

To the friend that blames pre-trib fundamentalists for the divisions, please cite your proof. Whether you agree with pre-trib theology or not, it can be logically supported with scripture. And while the meaning of 'fundamentalist' has been perverted, a true fundamentalist adheres to the established biblical doctrines.

It is quite dishonest to blame those who refuse to depart from established, accepted theology for causing division. I am not saying that division is always bad or that those who cause the division are always wrong. I am only stating the obvious; that if you and I agree on a doctrine and, my opinion changes, my actions caused the division not your inaction. Spurgeon was not responsible for the Downgrade nor are the 'fundamentalist' responsible for the SBC division. Spurgeon has been vindicated. Time will tell who in the SBC controversy is right.

P.S.- I apply the term 'fundamentalist' to any SBC church under protest as I believe that fundementalism carried to its logical conclusion precludes membership in the SBC.

 

I think the different "flavors" of baptist are dependent not on entire denomonations, but rather on a select few of the leadership. Most Baptist have no idea what they believe and will follow anyone who takes an nice middle of the road position and does not preach too much "doctrine". I have heard preacher say we don't need doctrine, we just need JESUS! Well my friend depending on your doctrine you might be talking about a very different Jesus. Without doctrine you might be worshiping an Arian Heresy style, Jehovia Witness type Jesus and that is a different ballgame.
I find it incrdible that most Southern Baptist want to firmly hold to "assurance of the beliver" but when the issue of election comes about they start puckering up and quoting John 3:16. They have NO IDEA that assurance of beleiver is firmly rooted in calvinist type theology.
I think Baptist have become the Generic Denomonation of the 21st century. you have General Baptist, Southern Baptist and all of the other main "kinds" building "willow Creek" and "saddleback" churches that are much more focus on style over substance.
SO I beleive that we as baptist are "reuniting" but not under CHRIST as we are commanded., but under the banner of contemporary worship and "small groups"
Division are OK because we must allow that there is not only the probablility, but the certainty that there are going to be false prophets and teachers and Being Baptist, our local congreagtions, can seek God's will concerning who is who. If we had a strict creedal type religon as the Catholics do, we would certainly be more uniform, but the question reamins "uniform under christ" or "uniformily heretical!"
I will stick with the "divisions: if it avoids the latter

 

There are too many people out their trying to inject worldly, touchy-feely, watered down, lets all just get along (as in the worldly and Christians), milque-toast doctrine into the word of God. It seems anymore that people think that God is an idiot and needs our help to traslate the Bible into somthing that makes us all feel good.

 

Part of the problem too is that so many think that God is not capable of speaking in today's English, and those dear folks make the mistake the Romanists made many years ago in that they limit God to an archaic language (in this case, the KJV), whereas they "limited" Him to the Latin Vulgate.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
WHY are we so fragmented?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Self righteousness. That's the only reason that ever exists for division. At least one party thinks it is more righteousness than another party.

 

Three reasons:<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Satan<LI>Satan<LI>Satan[/list]

 

Any group that has as a core belief the "priesthood of the believer" necessarily tends towards "divisions." And not all the "divisions" (a loaded word, to be sure)are bad or sinful. If one believes in Genesis' creation story as allegory and another as factual narrative, perhaps it makes more sense to put that issue (which I view as non-fundamental to salvation) aside and worship in separate congregations, and cooperate in missions and ministry with like-minded churches, so the theological differences do not distract from or dilute the important work of spreading the Gospel.

So I do not trouble myself with those who don't take the Scriptures literally. So long as the "fundamentals" are correct, let's put down our swords and get back to the fields, which are white unto harvest. Working separately, but towards the same goal, can be the most peaceful and God-honoring solution.

 

First, let me state that I believe that different denominations are necessary. Some of my Baptist "distinctives," while I believe them whole heartedly, I do see how others argue there positions consistently from Scripture. For the sake of unity, I believe it is essential that denominations exist, or else people end up arguing about non-essentials (pre-trib, pre-mil) within a given congregation.

OK, having said that, the cause of division is pride ("my way is better than God's"), and division is caused by people who have not read the whole counsel of God.

The main reason I posted though was to give a quote from John Fletcher (19th century Arminian -- I'm a Calvinist by the way), and it really hit home.

"Preachers . . . instead of agreeing to build the temple of God, think themselves obliged to pull down the scaffolds on which their brethren work. Shepherds, who should join their forces to oppose the common enemy, militate against their fellow shepherds: and their hungry followers are too frequently fed with controversial chaff, when they should be nourished with the pure milk of the word. After the example of their leaders, the sheep learn to butt, and wounds or lameness are the consequences of the general debate. The weak are offended, and the lame turned out of the way. The godly mourn, and the wicked triumph: bad tempers are fomented; the hellish flame of party-zeal is blown up, and the souls of the contenders are pierced through with many sorrows." -- from "An Equal Check to Pharisaism and Antinomianism" 2:285.

I am a fundamentalist and will dogmatically stand on whatever the Bible dogmatically teaches, but I do see much of what Fletcher was talking about in my circles. (The KJVO issue, in particular, seems ot fit here. Something that the Bible does not clearly teach [that one particular English version or set of Greek manuscripts would be copied perfectly] has become a dividing line of orthodoxy -- people ought to have a view on this, but it is not a Scriptural absolute.)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy: Because the rest of you are all wrong , that's why! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jimmy: Too many "theologians" with the idea that his ideas were better than Gods word. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wellsjs: Three reasons: Satan, Satan, Satan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you gents got to the heart of things.

 

Just my 2 cents opinion.
I am a born a raised Baptist, and after a good walk and study on other evangelical denominations, I have became a Baptist by convinction, because I strongly believe that the Baptist religion on itself is the closest one to the principals taught in the New Testment.
However......"and then it came the Conventions....", these made by men. And these Convention "owners" have caused all this differenciations in the Baptists, this is my thought.
These "owners" will be surpriesed when, and if they get to heaven and do not find their Resort Hotels specially prepared for them.
May God bless you all.
João Paulo

 

I am not saved because I am a Baptist.
I am a Baptist because I am saved.
Chew on that and see if you agree.

 

Dr. Bob, I dont know the answer to your question. Maybe we should form a committee and try to figure it out.