30,000 denominations Argument

[SumTinWong]

For a year know I have heard this whole thing about how protestants have created 30,000 different denominations which has seperated the body of Christ. 30,000? How can that be? Name all the divisions here: Non-denom, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Anabaptist, Methodist, Nazerene, Lutheran, Anglican, etc... Okay that might seem like a alot, but it is far short of 30,000.

Here is a great article (http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm) explaining how these figures were made and hopefully you can be prepared to destroy the myth of 30,000 denominations once and for all.

Also here is the article revisited. (http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm)

[Diane_Windsor]

Thanks Bud :) I've been to that website many times, and it's a great site.

[aReformedPatriot]

very fascinating. I'd be interested in reading a RC rebuttal to it if there is one.

[FreeinChrist]

Thanks! That is a keeper! :)

I put in a file with another one:
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=2489

in regards to the false claim that chiliasm (premillennialism) was declared a heresy.

[Thursday]

Im Catholic and I do not have a rebuttal to those statistics. The guy's definition of a "denomination" is pretty flawed. He says there are something like 14 "denominations" in the Catholic Church! :D.
Going by that definition of a denomination, I do not think you will find a Catholic who will agree with that and/or these statistics.

[Monica02]

I started a thread on OBOB, but I thought I would ask here. A linked article stated that the Southern Baptist Convention was divided on some doctrinal issues such as female ordination. Would Baptists consider these divisions to be seperate denominations?

[aReformedPatriot]

Im Catholic and I do not have a rebuttal to those statistics. The guy's definition of a "denomination" is pretty flawed. He says there are something like 14 "denominations" in the Catholic Church! :D.
Going by that definition of a denomination, I do not think you will find a Catholic who will agree with that and/or these statistics.
No doubt you would consider these people schismatics. I dont think the definition is flawed but rather that we are looking at it from 2 different angles. Your looking from the inside out and me from the outside in. What these results tell me is that every assembly has its own set of problems. Predominatly I think he made trash of the 30k propaganda nicely.

[Crazy Liz]

What difference does it make whether there are 30,000 or only 8,000?

[Crazy Liz]

...not to mention the fact that a lot of the Baptists here claim not to be protestant! ;)

[aReformedPatriot]

...not to mention the fact that a lot of the Baptists here claim not to be protestant! ;)
malarky. Not this baptist.

[FreeinChrist]

For a year know I have heard this whole thing about how protestants have created 30,000 different denominations which has seperated the body of Christ. 30,000? How can that be? Name all the divisions here: Non-denom, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist, Anabaptist, Methodist, Nazerene, Lutheran, Anglican, etc... Okay that might seem like a alot, but it is far short of 30,000.

Here is a great article (http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm) explaining how these figures were made and hopefully you can be prepared to destroy the myth of 30,000 denominations once and for all.

Also here is the article revisited. (http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm)
well, I am wondering how long it will be till this thread is removed, too.

[Thursday]

No doubt you would consider these people schismatics. I dont think the definition is flawed but rather that we are looking at it from 2 different angles. Your looking from the inside out and me from the outside in. What these results tell me is that every assembly has its own set of problems. Predominatly I think he made trash of the 30k propaganda nicely.
Actually, no, we don't consider them schismatics. In the Catholic Church there are different rites. Which basically means same beliefs, all under the pope, but different ways they celebrate Mass, different "lowercase 't'" traditions, etc. The Latin Rite is the biggest rite, especially in western Europe and the Americas. I think most Catholics on this forum are Latin Rite. But there are other rites, the Melkites and Marionites for example. They are by no means schismatic, but this guy called them a different denomination!

[Diane_Windsor]

Going by that definition of a denomination, I do not think you will find a Catholic who will agree with that and/or these statistics.



You'd be surprised to see how many Roman Catholics use that stat-especially on a certain popular apologetics board. /rolleyes



What difference does it make whether there are 30,000 or only 8,000?



It's not the number itself that bothers me, it is the attitude of Roman Catholic apologists. Many RC apologists just throw out the number to take a dig at Protestantism when the same source (David A. Barrett) says that there are 223 Catholic "denominations" as well. How conveinent that the RC apologist does not cite that number. I think that I can speak for several Protestants when I say that we get really tired of people throwing propaganda at us, and when a RC apologist does throw the 30,000 number at us then they lose all credibility. Eric Svendsen does a terrific job in both articles. RC apologists really do compare apples to oranges.



I started a thread on OBOB, but I thought I would ask here. A linked article stated that the Southern Baptist Convention was divided on some doctrinal issues such as female ordination. Would Baptists consider these divisions to be seperate denominations?



Such as the Baptist General Convention of Texas (http://www.bgct.org/) and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (http://sbtexas.com/)??? I wouldn't consider them two separate denominations. They are all "Southern Baptists" in my eyes, though last time I checked they are still at war against one another over the direction of the SBC. Sad isn't it?

[aReformedPatriot]

Actually, no, we don't consider them schismatics. In the Catholic Church there are different rites. Which basically means same beliefs, all under the pope, but different ways they celebrate Mass, different "lowercase 't'" traditions, etc. The Latin Rite is the biggest rite, especially in western Europe and the Americas. I think most Catholics on this forum are Latin Rite. But there are other rites, the Melkites and Marionites for example. They are by no means schismatic, but this guy called them a different denomination!
Oh, so by the same standards the differing "rites" of protestantism are classified multiple denominations? Do not the majority have 'basically the same beliefs' thus making the author of the article correct?

[Monica02]

Such as the Baptist General Convention of Texas (http://www.bgct.org/) and the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (http://sbtexas.com/)??? I wouldn't consider them two separate denominations. They are all "Southern Baptists" in my eyes, though last time I checked they are still at war against one another over the direction of the SBC. Sad isn't it?


Yes, very sad.
Okay, so you do not consider female ordination to be divisive enough to label a community as a seperate denomination. What points of doctrine or practice would you consider divisive enough to create another denomination? Thank you so much. I am trying to understand what people of different faiths consider "denominations".

[SumTinWong]

Here in New York we have a great many American Baptist churches. Under that umbrella we have churches that are liberal and churches that are conservative. One of the pastors who is an American Baptist Pastor is Peter J. Gomes who is a very out in the open gay man. On the other hand you have a church like mine that is very conservative and yet we are under the same denomination.

We are not a seperate denomination and yet we believe quite differently on some very key subjects. By the way the American Baptist church also has women pastors. I don't know if I buy into it, but they are here.

[Diane_Windsor]

What points of doctrine or practice would you consider divisive enough to create another denomination? Thank you so much. I am trying to understand what people of different faiths consider "denominations".
I'm trying to figure out the best way to word how I see things. So far I've come up with "Groups" and "Denominations". "Groups" are broad categories that include different "Denominations".

Group 1-Baptists

Denoms within this group would be Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, etc.

Group 2-Presbyterians

Denoms within this group include PUSA, PCA, etc.

Group 3-Lutherans

Denoms within this group include ELCA and other Lutheran bodies.

Group 4-Anglicans

Denoms within this group include church bodies in communion with Canterbury or independent church bodies, etc.

And so on and so forth.

The "Groups" are very different from the other "Groups", but the denominations within each group are very similar-the American Baptists are not that much different from the Southern Baptists, etc. Both denoms are classified as Baptist. Denominations are very narrowly defined while the Groups are broad.

Diane

[Crazy Liz]

I'm trying to figure out the best way to word how I see things. So far I've come up with "Groups" and "Denominations". "Groups" are broad categories that include different "Denominations".

Group 1-Baptists

Denoms within this group would be Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, etc.

[snip]

The "Groups" are very different from the other "Groups", but the denominations within each group are very similar-the American Baptists are not that much different from the Southern Baptists, etc. Both denoms are classified as Baptist. Denominations are very narrowly defined while the Groups are broad.

Diane

Do you know why Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, etc. are separate denominations?

[Diane_Windsor]

Do you know why Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, etc. are separate denominations?
I only know about the denom that I was raised in-the SBC, and I know that there are several reasons for the various Baptists denominations in existence today. In my eyes, "Baptists" are simply those who believe in "believers' baptism" and that the method should be immersion (and I get this from the Encyclopedia Britannia). Why they are so many separate Baptist denoms does not concern me.

Edited to Add:

The "Groups" are very different from the other "Groups", but the denominations within each group are very similar-the American Baptists are not that much different from the Southern Baptists, etc. Both denoms are classified as Baptist. Denominations are very narrowly defined while the Groups are broad.

I think I know why you asked your question, so let me clarify my above statement. When I say that the "American Baptists are not much different from the Southern Baptists" I am focusing on their distinct Baptist theology (believer's baptism, immersion only). IOW, in my eyes all Baptists are very similar because they believe in "believers' baptism" and baptism by immersion. Those beliefs distinguish them from other "Groups". Southern Baptists are against female pastors while other Baptist groups are for female pastors, but they still believe in the two Baptist distinctives, which makes them similar in my eyes. The same with Presbyterians and their distinct beliefs, and with Lutherans and their distinct beliefs, and so on.

I hope that clears things up a little.

Diane
:)

[aReformedPatriot]

I only know about the denom that I was raised in-the SBC, and I know that there are several reasons for the various Baptists denominations in existence today. In my eyes, "Baptists" are simply those who believe in "believers' baptism" and that the method should be immersion (and I get this from the Encyclopedia Britannia). Why they are so many separate Baptist denoms does not concern me.

Diane
:)
I like it.

[Crazy Liz]

Why they are so many separate Baptist denoms does not concern me.

You do realize, though, that it does concern some people, and that it is the reason for the whole 30,000 (or 8,000) denominations argument, don't you?

[Diane_Windsor]

You do realize, though, that it does concern some people, and that it is the reason for the whole 30,000 (or 8,000) denominations argument, don't you?
Of course, but when all the chips are down they are still Baptists, Presbys, Catholics, Lutherans, etc.

diane
:)

[ZiSunka]

List of Rites of the Catholic Church



The Roman Tradition
the Latin Rite (most Catholics belong to this rite)
the Ambrosian Rite
the Mozarabic Rite
the Slavonic Rite
the Gallican Rite

The Antiochene Tradition


The Maronite Rite
The West Syrian Rite
The Malankara Rite

The Chaldean Tradition


The Chaldean Rite
The Malabar Rite

The Armenian Tradition


The Armenian Rite

The Alexandrian Tradition


The Coptic Rite
The Ethiopic Rite

The Byzantine Tradition


The Melkite Rite
The Ukrainian Rite
The Russian Rite
The Bulgarian Rite
The Greek Rite
The Georgian Rite
The Italo-Albanian Rite
The Romanian Rite
The Serbian Rite

Plus, each of these rites have subdivisions within them. If someone tells you that protestants are clearly not of God because of all the divisions and that catholicism is of God because there is only one, show them this list and ask them to explain what they mean when they say catholics are all one.

My mother grew up Byzantine Russian rite, but raised us Byzantine Greek rite. Their belief and doctrines and practices are quite different, just like protestants are.

[SumTinWong]

I hadn't heard that before. Thanks for that lambslove.

[Crazy Liz]

LL, I think their practices are quite different, but their doctrines do not separate them. I look at splits because of practice (or geography) quite differently from splits because of doctrine.

There is a difference between diversity and division. Some protestant denominations are separate from each other because of diversity in practice or geographical separation, but still regard each other as brothers and sisters who can freely worship and commune together, as do all of these Catholic rites. Too many protestant denominations, though, have split because of some doctrinal disagreement that one or both sides felt made it impossible to view the other side in this way.

Diversity is good. Division is not.

[GreenEyedLady]

List of Rites of the Catholic Church



The Roman Tradition
the Latin Rite (most Catholics belong to this rite)
the Ambrosian Rite
the Mozarabic Rite
the Slavonic Rite
the Gallican Rite

The Antiochene Tradition


The Maronite Rite
The West Syrian Rite
The Malankara Rite

The Chaldean Tradition


The Chaldean Rite
The Malabar Rite

The Armenian Tradition


The Armenian Rite

The Alexandrian Tradition


The Coptic Rite
The Ethiopic Rite

The Byzantine Tradition


The Melkite Rite
The Ukrainian Rite
The Russian Rite
The Bulgarian Rite
The Greek Rite
The Georgian Rite
The Italo-Albanian Rite
The Romanian Rite
The Serbian Rite


Wow, this is awesome. Where did you get this?
GEL

[Crazy Liz]

Fascinating, but these rites have more to do with what color robes to wear on what day or whether the offering should be taken before or after the sermon than about any real division.

[Diane_Windsor]

Fascinating, but these rites have more to do with what color robes to wear on what day or whether the offering should be taken before or after the sermon than about any real division.
Source?

Thanks.

[FreeinChrist]

Do you know why Primitive Baptists, Southern Baptists, American Baptists, etc. are separate denominations?
They are are different conferences of Baptists. The conferences, like the SBC formed for the purpose of pooling rsources to send out missionaries. Between the conferences, there are differenct things emphasized. American Baptists focus more on home missions. SBC ties to do both.
Basic beliefs are the same though. and as Baptists see each church as autonomous, I don't see the that there is any issue. God uses ALL Christians.

I really think the number of denominations seem to concern certain groups, like the Catholic church, however, I just see it as that many more who are active in spreding the gospel. I see the church as being made up of believers from all denoms.

[racer]

very fascinating. I'd be interested in reading a RC rebuttal to it if there is one.

There is a rebuttal. Visit www.NTRMin.org. The source cited in the referenced article is the same source that Catholics are using when they make the 30,000 Protestant Denomination claims. However, Catholics are making this claim less and less as they become more acquainted with the source they've been giving credence to.

[Monica02]

Fascinating, but these rites have more to do with what color robes to wear on what day or whether the offering should be taken before or after the sermon than about any real division.
Yep- different liturgies. Also, I think the Eastern rites confirm babies. All are in full communion with the Vatican. The Catechism of the Catholic Church applies to all rites. All Catholics may attend all of the rite's services and still fulfill their Sunday obligation.

If anyone is interested in more information get on the Q/A forum at the EWTN website. I think they have a forum on this. Sorry-I am not computer smart enough to link. Also the Catholic Encyclopedia might have info.

Thanks to everyone who tried to answer my questions.

[SumTinWong]

here isanother source that might help
http://www.catholic.com

[Diane_Windsor]

racer,

I don't think that the second article had an RC rebuttel. Did I miss it?

Diane
:)

[SumTinWong]

Here Diane:
http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

[Diane_Windsor]

Here Diane:
http://www.ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm
That is the article that I am talking about. This article linked above doesn't have a RC rebuttal correct?

diane

[Crazy Liz]

Source?

Thanks.

What I said was a rather loose analogy, but the differences seem to be of a similar degree of significance. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm.

Edit: Here are two more links that might help:
1) A lot like the Catholic Encyclopedia article, but more concise.
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
2) The official Vatican statement on the Eastern rites
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

Thanks to the friends who found these for me. :cool:

[Crazy Liz]

Yep- different liturgies. Also, I think the Eastern rites confirm babies.
And also use raised bread for the Eucharist and have married priests, right?

[Crazy Liz]

They are are different conferences of Baptists. The conferences, like the SBC formed for the purpose of pooling rsources to send out missionaries. Between the conferences, there are differenct things emphasized. American Baptists focus more on home missions. SBC ties to do both.
Basic beliefs are the same though. and as Baptists see each church as autonomous, I don't see the that there is any issue. God uses ALL Christians.

I really think the number of denominations seem to concern certain groups, like the Catholic church, however, I just see it as that many more who are active in spreding the gospel. I see the church as being made up of believers from all denoms.

I don't want to foment division. Actually, I think today this is becoming more and more true, but we have to admit that historically, denominational splits among protestants have usually happened because of a difference in belief one group was so important that they could no longer fellowship with anyone who disagreed. I think the point of the 30,000/8,000 denominations argument is that protestants tend to have difficulty deciding which issues are important enough to break fellowship, and tend to err on the side of excessive schism.

As far as I can see, this is a fact, and we should acknowledge and confess it, rather than quibble about the numbers used to illustrate the argument.

[Monica02]

And also use raised bread for the Eucharist and have married priests, right?
Yes on the bread. Clarification on the married priests. I am no expert, so you migh want to double check somewhere. They will ordain married men, however a man may not get married once he is ordained. I know married priests cannot become bishops in the Orthodox Church so I am assuming that Eastern rite Catholic priests cannot either. A bit of trivia for you. I think an Armenian rite bishop was almost elected pope in the 50's or 60's.

[Carrye]

Yes on the bread. Clarification on the married priests. I am no expert, so you migh want to double check somewhere. They will ordain married men, however a man may not get married once he is ordained. I know married priests cannot become bishops in the Orthodox Church so I am assuming that Eastern rite Catholic priests cannot either.
Eastern rite priests can be married ... sometimes, though it depends on the rite and the location.

If an unmarried man is ordained, he can never marry. These will be the priests who can also become bishop. As Monica said, no married priests are ordained bishops.

A friend of mine is a priest in one of these Eastern rites, and priests in his rite in the United States hold to the decision of the USCCB, that priests are to be celibate. However, priests in his rite in another country (Iraq) follow the protocol outlined above.

[Carrye]

And also use raised bread for the Eucharist
This is again one of those "sometimes" answers. Not all Eastern rites use raised bread for consecration, but some do.

[GreenEyedLady]

Of course, but when all the chips are down they are still Baptists, Presbys, Catholics, Lutherans, etc.

diane
:)
When the chips are all down, just like the rites of the Catholic church we are all protestants or just plain born again christians.

[Diane_Windsor]

I don't want to foment division. Actually, I think today this is becoming more and more true, but we have to admit that historically, denominational splits among protestants have usually happened because of a difference in belief one group was so important that they could no longer fellowship with anyone who disagreed. I think the point of the 30,000/8,000 denominations argument is that protestants tend to have difficulty deciding which issues are important enough to break fellowship, and tend to err on the side of excessive schism.
I don't see denominational splits as "breaking fellowship"-most major Protestant denominations see the others as Christian and invite Christians of all denominations to the Lord's Table (though there are exceptions to open communion). IMO, it is those denominations who have closed communion policies that are breaking fellowship with their brothers and sisters in the Lord.

Diane :)

[GreenEyedLady]

I don't see denominational splits as "breaking fellowship"-most major Protestant denominations see the others as Christian and invite Christians of all denominations to the Lord's Table (though there are exceptions to open communion).Diane :)
I agree. Most of the bible believing Christians have all the same core beliefs. Salvation by grace and Baptism of obedience. Those are the 2 main things that make us one body so to speak. Its more about being born again than being baptized. That is what makes us brothers and sisters. IMO, our denominational splits are just as "valid" as the RCC's claim that the only differance is colored robes. Or was that just your opinion Liz?

[SumTinWong]

That is the article that I am talking about. This article linked above doesn't have a RC rebuttal correct?

diane Actually that is the second article withan RC rebuttal in it.

[SumTinWong]

As far as I can see, this is a fact, and we should acknowledge and confess it, rather than quibble about the numbers used to illustrate the argument. Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....

[SumTinWong]

I agree. Most of the bible believing Christians have all the same core beliefs. Salvation by grace and Baptism of obedience. Those are the 2 main things that make us one body so to speak. Its more about being born again than being baptized. That is what makes us brothers and sisters. IMO, our denominational splits are just as "valid" as the RCC's claim that the only differance is colored robes. Or was that just your opinion Liz? I think there are major differences, but they keys are the same. The reormed church taught predestination while many of us do not. There are some protestant churches that teach "real" presence of sorts while we do not, and they have infant baptisms, when we do not. That is different than what robes or the liturgy changes.

I think that is what Liz was trying to say anyway.

[Diane_Windsor]

Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....
You said it much better than I could have!

[Crazy Liz]

Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....

Do protestant denominations, in fact, keep splitting?

Is a poor estimate of the actual number of splits a lie?

[Crazy Liz]

I agree. Most of the bible believing Christians have all the same core beliefs. Salvation by grace and Baptism of obedience. Those are the 2 main things that make us one body so to speak. Its more about being born again than being baptized. That is what makes us brothers and sisters.
So you are saying Christians who baptize babies are not your brothers and sisters? They are not part of the same one body?
IMO, our denominational splits are just as "valid" as the RCC's claim that the only differance is colored robes.
I don't know what you mean by a denominational split being "valid." could you explain?
Or was that just your opinion Liz?
The different rites did not split from each other over their differences. They view their differences as minor variations that can be tolerated, like different colors of robes. Their liturgical traditions vary, like two Baptist churches where one uses choir robes and the other doesn't, or one takes the offering before the sermon and one after, and one observes communion monthly and the other quarterly. The differences in rites make as much differences to Catholics as that.

[GreenEyedLady]

So you are saying Christians who baptize babies are not your brothers and sisters? They are not part of the same one body?

.Infant baptism NOR baptism does not make someone IN the body of Christ. Its not a biblical teaching. This is a whole other topic.
GEL

[Crazy Liz]

Infant baptism NOR baptism does not make someone IN the body of Christ. Its not a biblical teaching. This is a whole other topic.
GEL
Actually, I don't think so. The topic is what causes protestant denominations to split off from each other, or restrains church splits.

[FreeinChrist]

Although I agree on one level that we should admit that as protestants we do split from one another over differences and yes there are denominational splits over the difference in doctrines, the actual numbers are not factual and are being to used as a tool to say, see look they keep splitting, how much truth can they have?

If people want to use lies to prove their point that is fine, but I aint standing for it....I agree.
Throwing around an unsubstantiated statistic loosely with no effort to verify isn't exactly telling the truth though I do not believe there is the intent to lie, per se.

And as I wrote earlier, not all "splits" are over doctrine. Technically, the American Baptists and the Southern Baptists never "split" from each other, but simply developed conferences that independent churches joined. And then each conference started more churches.

I do not see that the number of denominations is such a big issue it can be made out to be..

[Crazy Liz]

Technically, the American Baptists and the Southern Baptists never "split" from each other
Sure they did.

Over slavery.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html

[aReformedPatriot]

Sure they did.

Over slavery.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html
:thumbsup:

One is hard pressed to argue with that.

[FreeinChrist]

Sure they did.

Over slavery.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html
NO, they didn't, Liz. Go back and read that better. Do you see that ALL - as in every single Baptist church in America was united in one denomination, in one conference, in the 1770's? They weren't. There were already those that were Calvinists and those that were not. Regular vs. General. They arose in the reformation differently. AND the conferences didn't form until the 1800's. Didn't you read what I wrote? The American Baptists are a conference, Liz. The churches of the SBC never belonged to the ABC. They formed separately.
The purpose of their forming was to promote missions. Other Baptist groups also formed associations.

[aReformedPatriot]

Hmmm. I have been mis-informed somewheres about Baptist history then, as I thought a major contention was over the issue of slavery. The SBC unless im mistaken, formed in 1845 a few years before the civil war. Slavery had nothing to do with it, it was just missions?

[FreeinChrist]

The churches were alighned only in a missions society, not a denominational structure with president, etc. Yes, the focus was missions and the issue of slavery caused concern from the south that certain missionaries were not recieving monetary support.
So the SBC was formed.
I do not see this as a split because it was only a separation for a cooperative mission society.

[FreeinChrist]

ahhh... I thought I accidently erased this reply and so made the short one above....here is a better reply.


Slavery was an issue that helped lead to the formation of the SBC....but the SBC did not 'split'. There was a rather loose network (Mission society) of before that, and churches remained autonomous. This is from the site provided:


By 1790, liberty for Baptists had been won and they now began to organize and expand. At this time Baptists organized missionary societies to spread the Christian lifestyle to others. It was these mission societies that led to other organizational structures that would eventually define and make a denomination of Southern Baptists. In 1814, a convention for organizing the first national Baptist missionary society was held in Philadelphia. 10 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#10).

"Camp meetings" held in the Kentucky and Tennessee frontiers laid the foundation for the denomination in the South. These "camp meetings" were simply places where Baptists spread their beliefs. Strong appeal and evangelistic activity spurred growth for the Baptists during the nineteenth century, especially in the south. 11 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#11).

By the 1830's tension began to mount between the Northern and Southern Baptists. Baptists in the South were embracing slavery because it was the core of their social and economic order. Baptists of the North were saying that God would not condone treating one race as superior to another while Southerners said that God intended for races to be separate. In around 1835, the Southern states began complaining that they weren't receiving money for mission work.

In 1844 the issues of missionary work and slavery came to a peak. The Home Mission Society gave a statement saying that a person could not be a missionary and wish to keep his slaves as property. This caused the Home Mission Society to separate northern and southern divisions. As a result of this the Baptists in the south met in May of 1845 and organized the Southern Baptist Convention (http://www.sbc.net/). 12 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#12). The first annual convention of the Southern Baptists was held in 1845. In this convention the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board were established. The purpose of each board is still to "the propagation of the gospel," with one board focusing on national issues and the other on foreign issues. 13 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#13).


The focus was on missions and spreading the gospel. The formation of the SBC had a lot to do with concerns about which missionaries received monetary support and then formed.I don't see this as a denominational "split" as they were networked only for the purpose of missions, and each church remained autonomous.

[aReformedPatriot]

ahhh... I thought I accidently erased this reply and so made the short one above....here is a better reply.


Slavery was an issue that helped lead to the formation of the SBC....but the SBC did not 'split'. There was a rather loose network (Mission society) of before that, and churches remained autonomous. This is from the site provided:


By 1790, liberty for Baptists had been won and they now began to organize and expand. At this time Baptists organized missionary societies to spread the Christian lifestyle to others. It was these mission societies that led to other organizational structures that would eventually define and make a denomination of Southern Baptists. In 1814, a convention for organizing the first national Baptist missionary society was held in Philadelphia. 10 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#10).

"Camp meetings" held in the Kentucky and Tennessee frontiers laid the foundation for the denomination in the South. These "camp meetings" were simply places where Baptists spread their beliefs. Strong appeal and evangelistic activity spurred growth for the Baptists during the nineteenth century, especially in the south. 11 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#11).

By the 1830's tension began to mount between the Northern and Southern Baptists. Baptists in the South were embracing slavery because it was the core of their social and economic order. Baptists of the North were saying that God would not condone treating one race as superior to another while Southerners said that God intended for races to be separate. In around 1835, the Southern states began complaining that they weren't receiving money for mission work.

In 1844 the issues of missionary work and slavery came to a peak. The Home Mission Society gave a statement saying that a person could not be a missionary and wish to keep his slaves as property. This caused the Home Mission Society to separate northern and southern divisions. As a result of this the Baptists in the south met in May of 1845 and organized the Southern Baptist Convention (http://www.sbc.net/). 12 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#12). The first annual convention of the Southern Baptists was held in 1845. In this convention the International Mission Board and the North American Mission Board were established. The purpose of each board is still to "the propagation of the gospel," with one board focusing on national issues and the other on foreign issues. 13 (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/sbaptists.html#13).


The focus was on missions and spreading the gospel. The formation of the SBC had a lot to do with concerns about which missionaries received monetary support and then formed.I don't see this as a denominational "split" as they were networked only for the purpose of missions, and each church remained autonomous.



Fascinating. At least I wasnt completly wrong ;) . What ever became of the southern baptist view of slavery after this?

[Gold Dragon]

Fascinating. At least I wasnt completly wrong ;) . What ever became of the southern baptist view of slavery after this?
Fortunately, they realized they were wrong. Unfortunately, Christian denominations don't practice enough public confession and reconciliation with other denominations and instead try to shove the past under the rug in an effort to maintain authority.

[aReformedPatriot]

Fortunately, they realized they were wrong. Unfortunately, Christian denominations don't practice enough public confession and reconciliation with other denominations and instead try to shove the past under the rug in an effort to maintain authority.
I just want to love Jesus

[Spence06]

Well They are Old Catholics and many other schismatic groups...so maybe that fellow in the OP is counting those as a Catholic Denomination.

Though I never have personally used 30,000; I normally just say a lot.